|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 13, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The missing key to Kelly's room.:
Archive through July 13, 1999
Author: Leanne
Thursday, 08 July 1999 - 11:42 pm |        | G'day Chris,
Why do you say that Bowyer and McCarthy 'ought to have known about the missing key'? If Kelly was 'behind in rent' and 'needed money', she may have avoided telling McCarthy, fearing that she would have to pay for a new one and then find the missing one after-all.
Spare keys and master keys were expensive in 1888, so chances are that McCarthy didn't have one. If he did, I think he would have ran to fetch it, rather than destroy his property.
By using the word "blinds", Mary Anne Cox may have been referring to whatever was put there to act as a blind. Think, that she was probably nervous and frightened by the time of the inquest.
LEANNE! |
Author: chris
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 12:38 am | | leanne
I would agree totally with what you say. This seems very logical and probable. Well thought out
I would also agree abouth the window as well. I would say that Mary coxwas very nervous at the time. Judgement could have been jaded etc and use of the word blinds could mean anything, it could have been used as a general description for any form of window coverings.. ie most people will call a vacuum cleaner a 'hoover' as this was the first make of vacuum cleaner, likewise people often refer to a ball point pen as a 'bic', as it is the most well known make and so on
So, do you think it was mary kelly who died??
chris |
Author: Leanne
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 04:51 am | | G'day Chris, and Wolf if your still alive,
Yes I do believe that the body was Kelly's and any doubts began at the time of her inquest.
Coroner MacDonald, ended the proceedings after only one day. Inquests into the deaths of the previous Ripper victims, dragged on for several weeks. (Thanks Bruce, for pointing this out).
Rumours that Kelly was pregnant, probably came afterwards. All of the evidence wasn't presented and the fact that her heart was missing, was withheld. This probably caused people to think she was perhaps pregnant and even more sensational: that it wasn't even her!!!!!!
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 04:59 am | | G'day again,
The book: 'The Whitechappel Horrors', which was written about 30 years after the inquest, (and I believe contains many eyewitness statements), says that Joseph Barnett said that he identified her by the "perculiar shape of the EARS and the colour of her EYES, I am sure it is the same woman".
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 05:02 am | | G'day again,
The book: 'The Whitechappel Horrors', which was written about 30 years after the inquest, (and I believe contains many eyewitness statements), says that Joseph Barnett said that he identified her by the "perculiar shape of the EARS and the colour of her EYES, I am sure it is the same woman".
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne
Friday, 09 July 1999 - 05:04 am | | G'day again,
I'm sorry I posted the same thing twice!!!!!!!!!
LEANNE! |
Author: Wolf
Saturday, 10 July 1999 - 11:18 am | | I spent over an hour, last night posting on this board and it seems to have disappeared! Time and money wasted. Well, I'll try again tonight. Gotta go now, Argos versus Alouettes today at 4:00. (Canadian Football)
Wolf. |
Author: RED DEMON
Saturday, 10 July 1999 - 04:49 pm | | Hello All!
I've been spending a little time sitting here and reading this board for the first time. I have to say it is a wonderful and very informative board you have here.
LEANNE: This 'Whitechapel Horrors' book sounds like a very interesting read. How might I go about obtaining a copy? You mean to say that Barnett might have meant 'ears' all along, and not 'hair' as most often thought? Wow, maybe all the testimony in this case ISN'T hogwash. Perhaps some of the contemporary people on the case actually knew what they were talking about. I'm looking forward to more postings from you 'Kelly Key' experts. Keep up the awesome work!! Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Wolf
Saturday, 10 July 1999 - 10:13 pm | | Hey, Leanne, Chris, Christopher-Michael and all else.
Yes, I'm still alive but took some time off from the boards but have still been doing some thinking about the whole key, locked door question.
First, Leanne, you are right when you asked if Barnett and Kelly weren't locking and unlocking the door because they had no key. The door would lock on it's own once it was closed, so as long as you caould get to the catch, then you wouldn't need a key. However, I don;t think that the door was locked shut on the morning of the 9th. I will talk about this a little later on in this post.
Chrisatopher-Michael, ifyour still there, I am still considering whether or not I can make it to the conference, right now I'm leaning towards going and am even toying with the idea of submitting a paper, but this could change in time. I will certainly take you up on that beer if I do go.
I would have to agree with Leanne and Chris about the unlikelyhood of McCarthy having an extra key. remember, Miller's Court was off Dorset Street, were talking about one of the worst streets in one of the worst slums in all of Europe. 13 Miller's Court was just the back room seperated from number 26 Dorset which was supposidly used as a shed to store costers' barrows. I think it unlikely that McCarthy would spare the money to have or make an extra key and I also don't think that he knew anything about the lock on the door. We know that Thomas Bowyer had tried the door and that Detective Constable Walter Dew says that he also had tried the door and that it would not yield. Abbreline, who arrived at the scene at about 11:30, said at the inquest that "Dr. Phillips asked me not to force the door but to test the dogs if they were coming." Therefore we can see that the decision to force the door was made rather early on in the day, before Barnett had arrived at Miller's Court.
I have to agree with Christopher-Michael when he mentions the fact that Kelly was in arrears in rent and therefore unlikely to be allowing someone else to use her room that last night, especially if she knew that Bowyer was coming around some time the next day to collect.
Leanne, I have to wonder about "The Whitechapel Horrors" when it says that Barnett identified Mary Kelly by the "Distinctive shape of her ear." Coroner MacDonald wrote ear in his inquest notes, also some of the newspapers did as well, but the Whitechapel Horrors was published in 1924 and most books until the 80's mentioned ear, but recently it has been understood that Barnett has said "hair", especially since both of Mary's ears had been mutilated. Logically, hair, said with a thick cockney accent, makes more sense than ear.
Now, some of the things that I have been thinking about the past couple of days.
Julia Van Turney stated at the inquest that Kelly had broken the window a few weeks previously, when she had been drunk. Elizabeth Prater stated to the press on the 10th, that the couple had fought about ten days earlier and Barnett had told of a dispute with Mary on the 30th of October. All this has been used to pinpoint the date of the broken window and thus the date that the key had disappeared, but there is one problem, this was the fight that had proved to be the straw that broke the camels back for Barnet, he moved out of the room on the 30th. How, therefore, do we explain Inspector Abberline's statement at the inquest that "Barnett has since informed me that it (the Key) 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 simple.
Two things, what does Barnett mean by they, if the key was lost on the day that he had moved out? The lock on the door was no longer any of his concern and although he may have known how Mary opened the door, why would he describe how they opened it? Secondly, is ten adys the same as "missing for some time"./
I am asking, how do we know that the broken window that Barnett taled about, was the one caused by the fight on the 30th of October? There are reports of rags being stuffed through the broken panes of glass, seeming to identify more than one, and we have Stewart Evans photo of the windows at number 13 from which he says it looks like two of the panes are broken. Perhaps only one of the panes was broken the night Barnett moved out but maybe one had been broken earlier so that the key had been missing for a lot longer than we had originally assumed.
Now, getting back to what I had said earlier, Inspector Abberline arrived at Miller's Court at around 11:30 and being told that the door was locked, he decided to force the door open (before he was stopped by Dr. Phillips.) So, within 45 minutes of the body being found, the police had not figured out how the lock worked, all they knew was that they were facing a locked door with no key. Since the decision to brake down the door had been made, we can assume that McCarthy had been asked for a key but that he didn't have one and also that he didn't know how to operate the catch. Barnett wasn't on the scene and it's not quite clear when he did arrive, however he did state that he had viewed the body through the open window, so this might mean that he was there before McCarthy put pickaxe to the door, or simply that the police and medical men filled the tiny room and it was just easier for him to look through the window. Whenever Barnett was at Miller's Court, he was apparently not asked if he had a key or how to open the door.
I would guess that when asked, McCarthy told the police that there was only one key. Since Barnett had mover out ten days earlier, they assumed that he didn't have it, so they might not have even asked him about the locked door. Inspector Abberline did, however ask Barnett about the key when he interviewed him later that afternoon and Barnett's answer obviously satisfied Abberline to the extent that he commented at the inquest that there was no mystery about the locked door, in fact, the answer was quite easy." Now, if the police had tried to open the catch on the spring lock and it hadn't worked because a key was needed, or the catch had worked but a second mortise box lock kept the door locked and it's key was missing, and thus they were forced to break open the door, then why did Barnett's explanation satisfy Abberline? I would guess it was because nobody had figured out how to unlock the door using the catch. The police figured that they had a locked door on their hands with no key so they had to force it open. When Barnett explained how to open the door by using the catch, Abberline slaps his forehead and says, "Of course, how easy!"
Wolf |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 11 July 1999 - 01:45 am | | Hi y'all. Interesting discussion.
WOLF & LEANNE: Regarding Joe's identification of Mary's body - below is an excerpt from a post by Stewart on the Mary Kelly board ... the whole post is well worth reading. I'm wondering how y'all pole-vaulted over the fact that Joe Barnett signed a written statement of his testimony.
By Stewart P Evans on Saturday, March 20, 1999 - 04:53 am:
"It is stated in Barnett's statement for the inquest that he identified her body by "the ear and the eyes." It is doubtful that "the ear" was mis-heard and should have been 'the hair' as the statement is in writing and signed by Barnett."
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 11 July 1999 - 04:13 am | | G'day Mates,
RED:
The book 'Jack the Ripper - The Whitechapel Horrors', is a reprint of a small 32 page publication that was first published in the 1920s.
I found it under 'Book Reviews' here in 'Casebook'. I had to look at every book listed, because I really wanted an old one, that wasn't so 'polluted' by modern opinions.
It was written by Tom Robinson, who resided in Whitechapel during 1888 and contains eyewitness accounts of the actual inquests.
It's available from: Andy Aliffe, 10 Maybrook Gardens, High Wycombe, Bucks, HP13 6PJ, England.
The price is 10 pounds sterling or $20 US, (this includes overseas postage). Although not a very big book, it's valuable because of it's content.
WOLF:
The book doesn't say much about the morning of the 9th, but under the heading: 'The Seventh and Final Horror', (the panic started in Whitechapel after the attack on Emma Elizabeth Smith), it says that this horror, (the seventh), started as a vague rumour.
The coroner mentioned that this murder had taken place exactly opposite the house where Annie Chapman had lodged.
Joseph Barnett was the first witness called and he stated: "I have seen the body and by the peculiar shape of the ears and the colour of the eyes, I am sure it is the same woman".
I don't think he would have said: "..the peculiar shape of the hair", even if said with a thick cockney accent.
You say that modern Ripperologists understand that he said "hair", especially since both of Mary's ears had been mutilated. Barnett lied a number of times about his reasons for leaving Mary:
"In consequence of not earning sufficient money to give her".
"My being out of work had nothing to do with it".
"I should not have left her except for her violent habbits".
"Because she took in an immoral woman".
"Because she took in TWO prostitute friends."
Dr George Baxter Phillips stated: "One of the windows had two broken panes and FINDING THE DOOR LOCKED, I looked through one of the broken panes."
Bruce Paley's book, says that Joseph Barnett arrived sometime in the early afternoon.
Inspector Arnold ordered the door to be broken down at 1.30pm.
If Joseph Barnett had to identify the body by peering through the window, I'd say he arrived before the door was opened i.e before 1.30pm.
With so many intelligent men there, all peering through the window, surely one of them could have seen how easily the catch could have been reached?
LEANNE! |
Author: keithtyler
Monday, 12 July 1999 - 12:46 pm | | Hello all,
Is it reasonable to assume that the lock could have been a Yale lock? I searched for info on locks in Encarta, and I came up with this...
"The so-called pin-tumbler cylinder lock, or Yale lock, introduced about 1860 by the American inventor Linus Yale, was the first device to employ a small, flat key in place of a large, cumbersome one."
Although Yale locks were obviously around at the time of the murders, they must have been relatively modern for England. I was wondering if they would be expensive in comparison to other types of lock. Bearing in mind that Whitechapel was a slum area, where people had little in the way of posessions, I would wonder how new the lock was on the house.
Are there any alternative types of lock that can be described as a "spring lock"?
Regards,
Keith |
Author: Wolf
Monday, 12 July 1999 - 09:56 pm | | Hello all.
Ashling, thanks for the post about the Mary Kelly board, I don't think that I have ever read that Barnett had signed a written statement that was still in existence. In fact I was recently wondering about that very question.
Leanne, Annie Chapman did indeed live right across from Miller's Court at Crossingham's Lodging House, number 35 Dorset Street, Elizabeth Stride had lived at 33 Dorset Street with Michael Kidney but had moved on before Kelly and Barnett had arrived. According to Bruce Paley, Catherine Eddowes had spent some nights at number 26 Dorset, which was the "shed" that Kelly's room was partitioned off of.
I agree with your observation that it is doubtful that Barnett would have written "peculiar shape of hair" (unless it was a Mohawk, I suppose). See my response to Ashling about that.
As for Barnett giving different reasons for leaving Kelly, I don't think that I would call it lying, per se, but it just goes to show you the point that I was trying to make about not being able to say with 100% accuracy why Barnett left.
Dr. Phillips's testimony about the two broken panes of glass (the Penny Illustrated Paper of November 17th also talks of two broken panes), adds credence to my question that it was possible that the key had been missing for a longer period of time than ten days. As you mentioned, Inspector Arnold arrived with the information that the bloodhounds were not coming and at 1:30, the door was forced, however the point that I was trying to make was that Abberline had decided to force the door at 11:30, until Dr. Phillips stopped him. This means that very early on that morning, the police had been stymied over the locked door and had felt that their only recourse was to break the door open. More precisely, that McCarthy had no key and didn't know how to open the door through the broken pane of glass. As for Barnett arriving before the door was forced, it may well be that this was the case but that obviously, the police didn't ask him if he had the means to open the door.
You suggested that "with all those intelligent men there, peering through the window, surely one of them could have seen how easily the catch could be reached." This is a good point, but you haven't used my observation of the other day.
If any one looked through the window and saw how easily the catch could be reached, then why didn't they just reach in and open the door? And if they had tried this and the catch didn't work, or a key was needed, then why did Inspector Abberline accept Barnett's explanation? Abberline had been there, after all, he knew that there was a problem with the door. Why didn't he say, "We tried the catch but it didn't work, it needs a key." No, Abberline asked Barnett about the key to which Barnett replied that the key had been lost for some time, to which Abberline responded with something like "Than how did you open the door?" to which Barnett answered, "We put our hands through the broken window and moved back the catch." Again, Abberline did not respond, "Ballocks, that doesn't work." but with "It's quite easy."
Remember, the room was untouched and the window still in place until shortly before McCarthy broke open the door. Up to that point, everybody had stuck their hands through the broken pane and moved aside the coat to see the body. The sight may have been so horrific that no one was bothering to look too long, nor to see what type of lock was on the door. Even Dr. Phillips gave the room only a cursory glance. All that they knew was that the door was locked and that they had no key.
Kieth, according to James Tully, the Yale lock was patented in 1844 and although it may not have been a true "Yale" brand lock, it was probably one of a similar nature.
Wolf. |
Author: anon
Monday, 12 July 1999 - 10:43 pm | | You sound very knowledgeable Wolf, but you are making some mistakes.
The signed written statements of Barnett are in the Kelly inquest papers. Annie Chapman did not live "across from Miller's Court at Crossingham's Lodging House, number 35 Dorset Street..." No. 35 Dorset Street was on the same side as 26 Dorset Street, but further along, to the west, on the same side. The numbering of Dorset Street ran from west to east along the south side of Dorset Street, then east to west along the north side of the street from the Britannia. From this it is assumed that Crossingham owned more than one lodging house in the street.
There was no 'shed' at 26 Dorset Street, the reference is to the front of the address which was a proper room in the brick-built house, possibly mistakenly referred to as a 'shed' in the papers as McCarthy may have used it as a store-room for his shop. There is no evidence that Eddowes ever spent "...some nights at number 26 Dorset..." this was an unconfirmed press report in a paper that was probably just 'gossip.'
You have demoted Superintendent Arnold to an Inspector! There is no evidence at all of Barnett arriving at the scene on the day of the murder. Your language leaves a bit to be desired. Your point about the door being locked, and why the door was opened by releasing the spring lock is probably correct. |
Author: A.M.P.
Tuesday, 13 July 1999 - 12:27 am | | Hi Wolf, Anon.
Quite right there, Anon. The building directly opposite the end of Miller's Court in Dorset St. was number 14. It was a lodging house and Caroline Maxwell was the Deputy's wife. In the 1881 Census, a total of 39 people from six families had lived there.
In that year 35 Dorset Street was described as pulled down, but by 1888 a large building had certainly replaced it. It was a common lodging house, the Deputy being Tim Donovan. 35 was located on the eastern corner with Paternoster Row, which allowed the nightwatchman John Evans to watch Annie walk away up that alley towards Brushfield Street. I hope this helps. |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 13 July 1999 - 05:02 am | | If I'm not mistaken, I live near where the man who invented the Yale lock lived. It's an octagonal stone house in a small town called Newport, NY. There's an official historical marker there and I think the house is listed on the national historical landmark roles. Just a bit'o trivia and synchronicity.
Edana |
Author: RLeen
Tuesday, 13 July 1999 - 09:11 am | | Hello All,
I'd just like to add my tuppence worth by making a few personal observations.
First of all, if it's a question of finances, in contemporary Britain a Yale type lock is more expensive than a simple single-lever mortice lock. I'd imagine the economics of the situation would be as true in Victorian London as in today. For that reason I cannot imagine a house in an area like Whitechapel bearing a Yale lock.
Similiarly, I once lived in a house which was built during the period in question. When I lived there, almost twenty years ago, most of the period features remained. Now this house is what would be described as a "des res", it was probably built from the proceeds of some nabobs capitalistic ventures, and do you know what? Take a guess........there wasn't a Yale lock in sight until I put one on the front door.
So what does this tell us? Well quite frankly, it tells us nothing. However, is it unreasonable to assume that building specifications in a large home would be far superior to that of a hovel. If you think yes, then surely the probability of the lock on MJK's door being of the Yale type is about 0.0001.
Thanking you for your consideration and awaiting someone to point out that I'm nothing but a petit bourgeois with a poor grasp of Ripperana.
(Insert happy face)
Rabbi Leen |
Author: RED DEMON
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 12:51 am | | Hello All!
I have been skimming through this extremely interesting and informative board, and have thought of something which I would like to throw in for your consideration. If this point has already been brought up before, please excuse me...
The question (one of many) seems to be 'if 'Barnett, Abberline, and all of these intelligent men were on hand and peering through the window, why did they not use the catch? Barnett later stated that is how they got in after the key was locked, and Abberline certainly didn't make any fuss of this. So, it is to be understood that at the time of the door being broken in, Abberline, and possibly everyone else on the scene, including the landlord McCarthy(who certainly wouldn't want his door broken in if it could be helped, and would absolutely know of the latch), knew that there was an easy way into the room, but chose not to use it. Why? Let's take a look at the evidence...
They summoned a photographer to the scene...Not the common practice, apparently, if the handling of previous crime scenes is to be any indicator. They waited and waited for the bloodhounds, in hopes that they could pick up a scent. What does this tell us? They were wanting to preserve any and all evidence that may help them catch the Ripper. Perhaps...Just perhaps...they didn't want to disturb any evidence that may have been found on the inside of the door, on the doorhandle or latch. Perhaps...just perhaps, they SAW something on the inside of the door, or thought they did. Please tell me what you think of this. It's pure assumption, but it seems somewhat logical to me. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 03:05 am | | G'day RED,
Do you mean bloody fingerprints? It wasn't until a decade later, that police in India began using fingerprints to identify criminals.
The first British fingerprint files weren't established until 1901.
WOLF
OK, if the two broken panes, suggests to us that the key MAY have been missing before the fight with Barnett, who took it? Obviously 'Jack' had it, to lock the door when he finished.
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon Smyth
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 03:49 am | | RED
Your not the first to ponder this question, but for this problem to make any sense we must assume something is missing, or we have either misunderstood some statement, or a statement was made in error.
We can take it for granted that the Police on the Morning of the murder had every intention of preserving the crime scene, waiting for the dogs to arrive.
It's at 1:30pm when the order was given to force an entry that we have this conflict.
It strikes me that we are all assuming too much here, the story of the window being broken by accident when drunk sounds too much like an excuse, as it just happened to be a suitably placed pane of glass that was broken that enabled them to reach the catch thru the hole, when by the law of coincidences, they just happened to lose the key.
All too convenient, likely they lost the key, broke the pane so as not to have to pay for a replacement key and McCarthy didn't know about being able to reach the catch, it possibly just never occured to him on that morning.
He had looked thru the broken pane when called by Bowyer at 10.45am. But I'm sure he wasn't thinking about being able to reach a lock, the focus that morning was more to do with the carnage on the bed than how to open the door.
And McCarthy broke the door down himself, so in that, I think we can take it to the bank, that he didn't have a spare key.
They had tried to open the door, it didn't move, they assumed it was locked, McCarthy didn't have a spare, he forced open the door.
The only person we know of (alive) who knew how to open the door from thru the window, was Barnett, and he wasn't there that morning.
We are creating a mystery within a mystery just because we have some conflict. With our 20/20 vision we can argue 'something doesn't make sense' but on that cold November morning having been confronted with such a sight, I'm not sure anyone would be thinking straight.
This crime scene was the first we know of, that photo's were actually taken prior to the body being removed. The Police had responded to several suggestions in the press from a photographic society that to adopt 'the camera' to record crime scene info. rather than rely on hand sketches, was the way of the future.
So the art of crime detection stepped into the 20th Century with this murder in Millers Court.
Regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
