|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 8, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The missing key to Kelly's room.:
Archive through July 8, 1999
Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 02 July 1999 - 02:42 am |        | | To Stephen Tunney: Your deductions are very sound. They accord with much of the current summation re: the reapraisal of the time MJK's death. There are other (potential) witness accounts, which not only support an early A.M. Nov. 10th death, but a possible suspect retreat (see victims board). |
Author: Caz
Friday, 02 July 1999 - 04:46 am | | Hi Scott,
Sorry to be pedantic, the night/morning in question was Thursday 8th/Friday 9th November, not 10th.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 03 July 1999 - 01:43 am | | Hey Wolf,
Where did you get your information that Thomas Bowyer said he looked through the keyhole?
Notes on Kelly's inquest, in the Daily Telegraph of the 13th of November, state that Bowyer said: 'Receiving no reply, I passed round the corner by the gutter about where there is a broken window'.
If a mortise lock can only be opened or locked with a key and had to be forced open on that morning, who locked it?
Leanne! |
Author: RLeen
Saturday, 03 July 1999 - 07:14 am | | Hello Everybody,
Wolf, could you explain how "it is evident by both Joseph Barnett... and Inspector Abberline, who investigated, that the lock on the door was a spring loaded Yale lock."
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Wolf
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 03:38 am | | Hello Leanne, Rabbi Leen, et all. Questions, questions.
Leanne, most of the books on the Ripper case do not mention Thomas Bowyer looking through the keyhole and indeed he doesn't mention it in his testimony during the inquest but then again it is not that important a piece of evidence. Taken in consideration with the fact that in some newspaper reports there is a mention of rags stuffed into the broken window panes but not in others, and also that he pulled back the "curtain" without mentioning the coat covering the window, it seems that Bowyer's testimony is very elastic. I chose to take my information from:
- "Being a rent collector, Bowyer did not hesitate to apply his eye to the keyhole..." When London Walked In Terror, Tom Cullen, 1965 Hardback ed. pg. 190.
- "He knocked again. He looked through the keyhole, but could not see Kelly." The Uncensored Facts, Paul Begg, 1990 paperback ed. pg. 158.
- "There are newspaper reports that Bowyer looked through the keyhole but that would still be possible were the old lock unused." Prisoner 1167, James Tully, 1997 paperback ed. pg.378.
- "He knocked again but there was no reply. He looked through the keyhole but could not see anything." The Mammoth Book of JTR, Maxim Jakubowski and Nathan Braund, editors, 1999 paperback ed. pg.52.
What I am trying to suggest is that if Thomas Bowyer did indeed look through a keyhole, then he was looking through the keyhole of an old and unused mortise lock box., which were not made with a "catch" to move back, and was only operated with a key. That a Yale type deadbolt lock was also installed in the door, one which was spring loaded and had a "catch" to pull back as Joseph Barnett stated, and that this was the main lock used on the door. (The Times reported on November 10th that their correspondant had seen the interior of the room and described "the lock was a spring one.", The Uncensored Facts, Begg,pg. 160.)
Rabbi Leen, Joseph Barnett was interviewed by Inspector Abberline for over four hours. It was during this interview that he asked for and recieved information about the lock on the door.
Abberline's testimony at the Kelly inquest ran as follows:
"An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett has since informed me that it has been missing for some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hands through the broken window and moved back the catch, it is quite easy."
Hope this clears things up.
Wolf. |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 08:24 am | | G'day Wolf
My book says: Thomas Bowyer testified: 'Knocking at the door, I got no answer and I knocked again and again. Receiving no reply, I passed round the corner by the gutter, about where there is a broken window....I put my hand through the broken pane, (he probably moved back anything that was placed there to stop draft), and saw two pieces of flesh lying on a table. The second time I looked I saw a body on the bed and blood on the floor'.
Such was the excitement on that morning, that many newspapers reporters were there, all competeing for the best stories, some published half-truths or totally made up stories. So we cant always believe the newspapers!
Joeseph Barnett told 'Lloyd's Newspaper' on the 11th of November that police 'kept me for about four hours'. Speaking to 'The Starr', Barnett said 'The police kept me for two and a half hours.' Now you mention 'OVER four hours'!
The window was smashed during a violent fight between Kelly and Barnett, weeks before and it was about this time that the key went missing, because if the key was lost before the window was broken, how else would she have been able to get in her room?
I believe that if the door was UNLOCKED at the time the window was smashed, Kelly installed a lock with just a 'catch', that her and Barnett could reach, through the window.
On the morning that her body was found, everyone viewed the scene through the broken window, because the door was LOCKED SHUT with a key and couldn't be opened again by the hand-through-window method. As the bloodhounds weren't coming, the landlord (who didn't have a spare key), pich-axed the door open).
I wonder what happened to the key that went missing, when Barnett and Kelly had that fight?
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 09:45 am | | G'day again,
To give you an idea of how desperate and in a hurry newspaper reporters were to get stories out about the murder of Kelly, some papers reported Kelly's 'husband' as Joseph Kelly, James Kelly, John Kelly, Joseph Barrett (that's a familiar sirname), Dan and even Jack. Kelly was falesly reported as having a 6 or 7 year old child living with her and one claimed that she was an accomplished artist. One said she was known as 'Ginger', another said she was known as 'Fair Emma' and one reporter saw Joseph Barnett being taken to the police station and said 'An arrest has been made!'
I chose to take my information from the book: The Simple Truth' by Bruce Paley.
LEANNE! |
Author: Wolf
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 06:41 pm | | Leanne, you just proved my point that Bowyers accounts were elastic, but what seperates the wheat from the chaff? Am I wrong in saying that Bowyer looked through a keyhole because you don't want to believe the sources that I quoted? Who can really say. As for Kelly installing a catch, why was it described as being a spring lock? and keep in mind that the spring loaded deadbolt type lock also needs a key to open and that this was probably the key lost at the time of the argument.
Wolf |
Author: Dave Yost
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 01:43 am | | Hi All,
Kelly is possibly one of the most controversial cases within JTR.
But I wonder if anyone has the information it takes to properly support their position?
I offer a challenge to all who post on the Mary Kelly case. At the US-JTR Conference in April 8-9, 2000 we will be holding a panel discussion on Kelly. Of those who post on MJK, who is willing to offer their views and evidence in a public forum? Who is willing to do more than simply post and offer to the public what they know and present it to an audience?
Who is up to the challenge?
Cheers,
Dave Yost
Secretary
Casebook Productions
jacktripper@fcmail.com
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/cp_conference_on_jtr/ |
Author: Leanne
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 05:09 am | | G'day Wolf and all,
I choose not to believe that Bowyer looked through a keyhole, because I learn that many newspaper reporters printed assumptions and what they heard from on-lookers, in a rush to get the first printed story.
I prefer to look at actual statements made at Kelly's inquest, when no one mentioned a keyhole. Because of these false newspaper reports, many books contain false or misleading information.
About the key that must have got lost after the argument:
At Kelly's inquest, Abberline said "Barnett informs me that the key has been missing for some time and since it has been lost, he and her have put their hands through the broken window and moved back the catch".
As the window was smashed during the argument on the 30th of October, (two weeks before the murder), Barnett's statement to Abberline proves that the key was lost at the time that the window was smashed.
Barnett said that they "mooved back the catch", not that they had to unlock a spring lock through the window.
I chose to take my information from:
* "Bowyer knocked on the door and as he couldn't get an answer, he went to the side and poked his hand through the broken pane of glass".
- 'The Complete Jack the Ripper' Donald Rumbelow.
* "Unable to get an answer or open the spring locked door, he pulled back the coat and curtain hanging behind the broken window pane..."
- 'The Jack the Ripper A-Z' Begg, Fido and Skinner.
* "Bowyer got no reply when he knocked on her door, which he found locked and went to look through the window."
- ' JTR The Final Chapter' Paul H Feldman.
* "He knocked on the door, but not getting any answer, he threw the blinds back and looked through the window."
- 'Jack the Ripper, The Final Solution' Stephen Knight.
* "He knocked and received no answer. He found a broken window and pulled the curtain aside."
- 'Jack the Ripper, First American Serial Killer'. Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey.
LEANNE! |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 09:35 am | | Leanne -
Actually, Barnett's statement suggests that the key was lost at the time of or after the argument which precipitated the breaking of the window (thought to have taken place on October 30th, but not, as far as I am aware, confirmed as having done.)
All the Best
Guy |
Author: chris
Monday, 05 July 1999 - 10:22 am | | wolf
thank you for your constructive criticism.
in reply to your 6 points, I now wish to respond with why I disgree with your "THEORIES"!
1. if the prostitute who was killed was not mary kelly but was in her room, it would be logical that she was in there with Kelly's authority, therefore kelly was not going to bring a client back. so why had he to run??
2.Althought I accept it was november and cold and the chances are the window was shut, it could well have been unlocked and easy openable
3.Where is the proof that abberline said it was a mortice lock.
4. as for the suggestion that he killed kelly in the daylight,...in a room with a door with no lock, shared by other prostitutes, knowing all the police force were looking for him, and with no curtains at the window, just rags.....?
Leanne and rabbi have voiced some queries about your "THEORIES" as well and I can't say I'm really satisfied by your answers. It seems to me that your corrections on my theories are nothing more than your theories for the majority, based on works of authors with their own theories and in some cases distorted facts.
I can't see that you have quoted many original sources.
I see that in reply to a critique of your "theory" by leanne you backed down a little and almost moved your goalposts. As stated in Feldmans book, 'Once the "experts" start moving the goalposts, you know your onto something'
Yes I have my own theories on JTR as we all have, and I don't believe that anyone other than JTR can have the ultimate concession for these.
I hope my theories don't put you off course but I'm sure you realise that this site is a learning experience and if you stick around long enough you'll get the hang of it!!!
The one thing to remember here is that everyones opinions and theories are just that. Opinions and theories. As to who is right and wrong is debateable. The evidence is limited and reports varied and contradicting. (sorry if I sound like Jerry Springer in summing up)
Opinions (and death threats) welcomed
Chris |
Author: Wolf
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 02:57 am | | Hello all. Leanne, it is quite proper to rely on inquest testimony but to completely throw out all newspaper reports is like throwing out the baby with the bath water. Statements given to the press are given in a more relaxed atmosphere than those given on the witness stand in front of a jury, coroner and packed room. What might not seem important when confronted by the pressures of an inquest might be added to an interview with the press. If you throw out all press reports then every single book ever written on the Ripper murders must be looked on with suspicion.
I believe that you are suggesting that the door to number 13 was kept shut using only some sort of bolt that could be drawn back but could not "lock" the door, if that was the case then Abberline's testimony at the inquest would mean that the door was not "locked" but just bolted (going by what Barnett had told him), therefore your earlier statement that the door was LOCKED SHUT would be wrong. Or, you are corrrect and Abberline was totally off, espaecially when he says that the answer was "quite easy". I am afraid that I will have to trust the Inspector about this one because a Yale type lock would fit the circumstances of both a "catch" and a "locked" door without a key.
Whoa!, Chris, was that a nerve that I struck or are you always so sarcastic? It was nice that you even attempted to suggest that you took my criticism as being constructive, but who's kidding who? Let me attempt some more "constructive criticism", (you might want to look that term up in your dictionary) in reply to your last posting.
1) You are suggesting that Mary Kelly decided to loan out her room, one that she used to bring her clients back to, so that she could tramp through the cold and wet (it rained all night), until some time as she saw fit to return to her bed the next morning? Talk about your hooker with a heart of gold! And if this mysterious woman was in the room with Kelly's authority, why would you suggest that she had to climb into an open window? surely Kelly would have just let her in or at least told her about sliping her hand through the broken window pane inorder to pull back the catch? Also, you state that since Kelly was not going to be bringing any clients back, "so why had he to run??" from which I can only gather that you mean that the Riper would also have to be privy to the sleeping arraingements and thus was not hunting Kelly as you first suggested.
2) Thank you for accepting the wheather report as being truthful. Yes the window could have been unlocked or maybe not.
3)?, I never wrote that Abberline said that it was a mortice lock, I said that Joseph Barnett's description of a lock with a catch was evidence of a Yale type spring loaded type lock. Abberline repeated what Barnett had told him.
4)??, First off, "in a room with a door with no lock, shared by other prostitutes,....and with no curtains at the window, just rags..."??? I have read over my earlier postings and can find absolutely no evidence that I said any of this. I did say that the door was locked, and that there was at least a heavy coat hanging over the windows and that rags were stuffed into the broken panes of glass. You are then one who is suggesting that other prostitutes were still sharing the room (where does this information come from?). If you want to slag my "THEORIES" then at least have the sense to get them right.
Secondly, I suggest that you read my posting in the Mary Kelly; was Mary Kelly a Ripper Victim, Part 2, June 5th. board on time of death. Mary kelly was murdered at about 10:00 a.m. that morning and that was why she was seen alive by Maurice Lewis at 8:00 and 10:00 a.m., and by Caroline Maxwell at 8:30 and 9:00 a.m.. There is no great mystery or conspiracy involved, no unknown woman dead in Mary Kelly's place, just the incredibly wrong time of death given by Dr. Bond.
So, you aren't satisfied with my answers to Leanne and Rabbi Leen, well to put it politely, tough. I have 27 years of Ripper study under my belt and if you believe that "your corrections to my theories are nothing more than your theories for the majority, based on works of authors with their own thoeries and in some cases, distorted facts." then you haven't read many of my postings. The same would go for your, "Have'nt quoted many original sources" observation. Apperantly you think that the source of all knowledge flows through you, but sometimes the majority is right and sometimes, personal theories are wrong, you just have to face that.
As for quoting Feldman, I wouldn't trust him if he told me that the sun sets in the West. What little credibility you had has just gone out the window.
As for me backing down from Leanne, you confuse explanation with "moving the goalposts". Maybe one day you and I will sit down over a beer and I'll tell you the story of the bar room brawl I had with the Biker who pulled a knife on me. Sorry, backing down isn't in my vocabulary.
Wolf. |
Author: chris
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 04:28 am | | wolf
thankyou for your reply, it was most enlightening.
a few returns now.
In reply to your part 4
A site on the net (and i can't remember which one as yet) states there were no curtains at the window, just an old coat and part of a blanket with rags stuffed in the hole to keep the draught out.
likewise, a site on the net states (i think from kelly's common law statement) that the argument that made them split up was due to kelly sharing her room with other prostitues in particular one with whom a lesbian affair was was inferred.
time of death
it seems uncharacteristec of jack to kill in daylight
a) too great a risk and he must have been desperate
b) in november, with longer hours of darkness, why would he have to wait until morning
c) how would he ensure there was no blood on his clothers before walking away ( not so bad in t he dark)
Yes personal theories are often wrong but what makes one wright and another wrong??
A beer, good idea, i like stories
So, pleasentries out of the way, and on a serious non sarvcastic note...
why wouldn't you trust feldman??
I know a lot of ripper people dismiss the diary as a fake for various reasons and who will ever really know, but his writing ( if a little self indulgent) is convincing and he does seem to have done his research well?
chris |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 04:47 am | | G'day Wolf, Chris and all,
Wolf, I am not competing with you or anything, mate. This JTR thing is no competition. You have researched for 27 years and I have researched for about 5.
I am writing a page on the 'Missing Key' thing, for the Aussie Cloak & Dagger mob and really want to test my theory, with someone who thinks 'The Missing Key' was not that important.
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 10:23 pm | | G'day Wolf, Chris and Anyone else who's interested,
I found some books: 'The Whitechapel Horrors', by Tom Robinson and first published in the 1920s, about 30 years after the murder/inquest.
It says that Thomas Boyer said "On Friday morning I was sent to the poor woman's room to collect rent. I knocked several times but as I could get no answer I went round and looked through the broken window of her room".
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 06 July 1999 - 10:32 pm | | G'day again,
Another book I found: 'A Treasury of Victorian Murder', presents the whole JTR sory in comic strip form, illustrated by Rick Geary.
Geary compiled his work from 'the journals of an unknown British gentleman, who lived in London during 1888.'
On page 56, his captions say: 'Joe Barnett moved out on 30 October, after a violent quarrel, during which a pane of glass was shattered.....Apparently, the room's latch key had been missing for several weeks, forcing the occupants to shoot the bolt by reaching through the broken window....Yet the door was left securely locked by the murderer!'
LEANNE! |
Author: Wolf
Wednesday, 07 July 1999 - 11:13 pm | | Hello Chris, Leanne and all.
Chris, as you mentioned, there are reports of a coat covering the window, Detective Constable Walter Dew says that "I moved to the window, over which, on the inside, an old coat was hanging to act as a curtain and to block the draught from the hole in the glass." "I Caught Crippen", Walter Dew, 1938, pg. 144. But Thomas Bowyer, in his statements to the police (November 9th and November 12th) stated that he "threw the blinds back." When Bowyer gave his testimony at the inquest, he says that he "pulled aside the curtain". Also, The JTR, A-Z, says, "Unable to get an answer or open the spring lock door, he pulled back the coat and curtain hanging behind the broken window pane. "The JTR, A-Z", 1996, pg. 54.
As you can see, these are all excellent sources so who do you believe? You have to form your own opinion, in this case, it is likely that even though Inspector Dew was writing 50 years after the event, he had actually been in the room and had seen what it was covering the window, also and old pilot coat was found in the room but it is not stated where it was found. Considering the fact that it wasn't burned, it is likely that it was covering the window. But waite, how can you say that, because Bowyer's inquest testimony says curtains covered the window. You must be wrong! (see how this goes).
As foe what was or was not stuffed in the broken panes, only Donald Rumbelow mentions that Bowyer "poked his hand through the broken pane of glass (which he knew had been stuffed with rags ever since the quarrel with Barnett) and pulled back the muslin curtain inside." "The Complete JTR, 1975, pg.64. (I can find no other source for this observation but it is likely that it is included in one of the newspaper reports.)
You are right in stating that arguments about sharing the room with prostitutes might have broken Kelly and Barnett up, but Barnett also told Inspector Abberline that it was because Mary had returned to prostitution. Kelly allowed a woman named Julia to share the tiny room with her and Barnett, for a couple of days, until such time as she had found lodgings of her own, the same for Maria Harvey. That's only two women and a practise that started in late October. The Lesbian angle stems from the question why would Kelly kick Barnett out of her bed in order to share it with another woman, (assumung that the three of them didn't share the small bed) and here probibly lies the answer to the whole thing. As Bruce Paley surmises, it was probibly all a plan to force Barnett out the door, not because she was Gay, but because she had tired of him especially since he had lost his job. Mary Kelly had no real history of inviting other prostitutes to share her room especially when she needed it to entertain clients. The question of whether she did allow someone to use her room on the 9th is based solely on the fact that her face was mutilated beyond recognition and so useless conspiracy theories pop up based on no evidence at all. The fact that Barnett and John McCarthy, both identified the body, and that Walter Dew also knew her and had seen her body, is somehow forgotten.
I have heard the argument that it was uncharacteristic for the Ripper to kill in daylight for the reasons that you have stated, and I assume that you didn't read my posting on time of death, but as I stated there, according to Dr. Bond's observation that rigor mortis was just setting in when he examined the body at 1:30 p.m., it would be impossible for her to have died when he claimed. he said that rigor mortis comes on between 6 to 12 hours after death when in fact it starts 2 to 4 hours after death. Although many things can effect this onset, there is no way that, given the circumstances, she was killed at around 2:00 a.m., about 10:00 a.m. is more likely. Now here's the thing, characteristic or not, modern medical pathology is a greater proof of time of death than crude Victorian medicine. The first appendectomy was carried out around this time, that's how crude medical science was. Before that, if you suffered from appendicitis, you died. Questioning modern pathology because it doesn't seem to fit with the way you think a killer would react to a given situation is not proof unless of course, you are an expert on pathology, criminal psychology, and the Ripper murders and give detailed psychological reasons backed by evidence, that there is absolutely no way that the Ripper would ever kill under these conditions.
As for Feldman, I have already posted something on the JTR, The Final Chapter, board but I will say that I found the book to be poorly and sloppily written. He did a lot of research but for what point? To prove that the bogus "Diary" came from Maybrick's descendants? And how does he do that when he doesn't offer any real evidence other than a mass of supposition? Feldman never gets to the crux of his theory, that of the authenticity of the Diary because it is indefensible, so he tries to confuse us with a family tree of the illegitimate Maybrick's and the other people around the Diary. You know the saying "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bull***t."
Leanne, I don't see this as a competition but you have to understand that I've seen a lot of theories and opinions over the last 27 years and whatever we say about the missing key or the type of lock on the door, has all been said a thousand times before. No one has yet to answer the question to everybody's satisfaction. I have been able to answer it to my satisfaction however, and without irrefutable evidence to the contrary, I will have to keep my opinion.
I can't comment on the first book that you mentioned, but I will comment on Rick Geary's book. First off, "Jack the Ripper" is considered a work of fiction because Geary uses a fictional British gentleman's journal to tell his story but here is the interesting thing, when Geary illustrates the locked door on page 56, he draws the kind of spring loaded Yale deadbolt lock that I have been talking about! The kind that has both a catch, to open by hand, and needs a key to lock and unlock.
Wolf. |
Author: Leanne
Thursday, 08 July 1999 - 06:08 am | | G'day Wolf,
So is this right: Since the key was lost, after the fight with Barnett, he and her weren't locking and unlocking the door with a key, but just reaching through the window to open and shut a catch?
As this method failed on the morning she was found,the murderer must have had a key to lock the door shut. Right?
LEANNE! |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Thursday, 08 July 1999 - 12:48 pm | | Leanne -
Far be it for me to jump the gun on Wolf, as his knowledge of the case far outshines mine (and I hope he'll grace the US Conference next year with his wit and intellect - I'll even buy the first round!); however, since I am passing through, I'll attempt a brief answer.
"It's possible, but we're not certain." Why McCarthy and Bowyer (either of whom ought to have known about the missing key) do not seem to have told the police about the Kelly/Barnett method of entering No 13 is its own minor mystery. We could speculate that McCarthy simply didn't know the door was locked, but were that the case, why did he feel compelled to use an axe to break down the door when Superintendant Arnold ordered entry? Once McCarthy turned the knob and couldn't enter, why did he not use his own key - surely he would have one, or some sort of passkey? Why not put his hand through the window and turn back the lock? Or did he assume the police had already tried that and found it could not be done?
We might assume with some probability that the door was locked; Inspector Abberline stated at the inquest "Dr Phillips asked me not to force the door but to test the dogs if they were coming. . ." which leads one to think that someone had at least rattled the doorknob and found the door barred.
It might also be of interest in regards to the "what covered the window?" question that Mary Ann Cox testified at the inquest she "saw nothing as the blinds (!) were down. . ."
And just as another stake in the heart of the idea that Kelly might have let another woman in her room to entertain punters - she was 29 shillings behind in rent on a room costing 4/6 per week. She needed money. Would she really have let someone else use her room for "immoral purposes" and not demanded a cut of the swag? I can't see it; but then, I've a bit of a jaundiced eye where the Prima Donna of Spitalfields is concerned.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
|
|
|
|
