|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 16, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The missing key to Kelly's room.:
Archive through July 16, 1999
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 04:57 am |        | Jon,your post made so much sense..but then again, your posts usually do. SO we've got a broken pane of glass leaving a convenient space to reach in and unlock the lock. Rabbi Leen makes an excellent point about Yale locks, convincing me that the lock wasn't a Yale lock...so it was either a cheap Yale rip-off brand, or it wasn't a Yale-type lock at all. The key has gone missing and Mary and Joe don't have the money to buy a replacement key...so they break the window in order to open the door. Are we coming to the conclusion that the Ripper had a key? I suppose it all rests on whether or not the lock was a self locking type or not. If it was a self locking lock, then the Ripper didn't have a key and was let in by Mary herself, and if it wasn't a self locking lock then he had a key. If he had a key..where the heck did he get it since Mary didn't have one. Did somebody take it with the intention of using it to get in and steal..or murder? If so, it was somebody Mary and/or Joe knew. Hope I haven't got this all muddled.
Edana |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 06:56 am | | G'day everyone,
JOHN: What makes you say that Barnett wasn't even there that morning. He identified the body, by peering through the window. On the 11th of November, he told Lloyd's Newspaper that: "I went to the court and there saw the police inspector and told him who I was and where I had been the previous night".
A book that contains eyewitness details of the inquest says that the coroner asked: "Has the key been found since the night of the murder?"
Abberline replied: "No sir. The man Barnett informed me that the key had been missing for some time and as the panes were broken, the pair had been in the habit of pushing the catch of the door back through the window and entering the room in that way, which was easily done."
WOLF: If the key was missing before the fight and only one pane was broken, why didn't Barnett mention this important fact at the inquest?
As this 'eyewitness' book says that the coroner stated that "Chapman had lodged in the house opposite", I'd say that he was referring to the lodging house at number 14.
The word 'Shed' was probably a nickname for the 'proper room in the brick-built house', as the lodgers were made to feel like cattle.
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon Smyth
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 10:46 am | | Leanne
One of the problems in quoting from newspaper accounts is the notoriously unreliable nature of gathering the info in the first place. There are very few news accounts that can be verified as true to fact. Many Reporters, Editors or witnesses leaned towards a little embellishment, every now & then.
We’ve covered a few examples here on these boards already.
Of course we can accept Barnett showing up at Millers Court eventually, I don’t dispute that, but my point was more to do with Barnett being with them in the Court prior to the door being forced, as I said,..’in the morning’.
As we all know Barnett went through several hours interview with Abberline following the murder and during this interview Barnett told Abberline how they would open the door by reaching through the hole in the window, and pushing back the catch.
Now, seeing as how from 11.00 ish in the morning the Court was host to several very interested parties, who had every intention of entering the room at some point.
And it may even have been suggested by Abberline to force the door earlier in the morning but Dr Philips advised against it. It was quite obvious that had anyone been there who knew about the catch behind the door they would have been the centre of attention.
But, we have the Inquest testimony to guide us through this, Insp. Beck tells us he was the first Officer to get to the Court, and he had it closed to all persons, this means ALL.
It does not mean an exemption for our very eminent ex-fish porter , we even have a photo of the rear view of #13, taken from within the Court. We see no people in this picture, what is more we see no reflections in the glass, of any persons kept back out of view.
The Police Officials were there, Dr Phillips & his cameraman, and eventually McCarthy. So if Barnett entered the Court, it was only after the room was forced, and possibly following the Doctors preliminary exam.
You say Barnett identified Kelly by her hair & ear, from thru the window, please take a look at the ‘body on the bed’ photo of Kelly, that photo was taken from inside the room, much nearer to the corpse than any person trying to view thru a hole in the glass. And yet I defy anyone to even pick out her ear, never mind identify her by it. That, if you don’t mind me saying so, is ludicrous.
Witness identifications were done following either preliminary or autopsy examinations but prior to the inquest, so I suggest that Barnett identified her after the Doctors had done with their investigation, and quite possibly this was done after her removal from Millers Court.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Wolf
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 09:36 pm | | Hello all. Well there seems to be an explosion of people on this board, although some of you have gone over the same ground Leanne, Chris and I havecovered the last couple of weeks.
It seems that I have come under the scrutiny of Anonymous and lived to tell the tale. I accept the criticism but will offer a rebuttle to some of it.
Anonymous, you added some confusion to some on the board when you stated, "Annie Chapman did not live "Across from Miller's Court at Crossingham's Lodging House, number 35 Dorset Street."" It looks as if you are saying that Chapman didn't live at Crossingham's or that it wasn't located at number 35. Of course you were pointing out that number 14, another Lodging house, was opposite Miller's Court and not Crossingham's. This fact made me look back to find out where I had come acros this notion, since I have always assumed that Crossingham's was opposite Miller's Court. Several books including the A-Z say that it was, (and to muddy the waters somewhat, Fido includes a map of Dorset Street which shows Crossingham's across from Miller's Court,) they are obviously wrong. To all those who wondered, Annie Chapman did indeed live at Crossingham's Lodging House which was situated at number 35 Dorset Street.
You stated that there was no shed at 26 Dorset Street, only a proper room which was part of the brick house. Firstly, I wrote "shed", to indicate that this was a quote and not my description, however, there are reports of the front room being used as a "shed" or "warehouse" or "store" (used for storage). Lloyd's Newspaper, November 11th, The Daily Telegraph, November 10th,12th,13th, and The Western Mail, November 10th, all describe the front room of number 26, thus.
As for there being no evidence that Catherine Eddows ever spent "some nights" at number 26 and that this was just "unconfirmed gossip", I did attribute this to Bruce Paley who quoted from reports from Lloyd's Newspaper, October 7th, and November 11th. I added it as an aside.
When you mentioned that I had demoted Superintendant Arnold to Inspector, I didn't believe you until I checked my post, sure enough, I had. I can only beg the lateness of the hour for the slip.
Leanne has responded to your observation that, "there is no evidence that Barnett had arrived on the scene on the day of the murder." Again, The Star, November 10th, and Lloyd's Newspaper, November 11th, make mention of the fact. I would like to add that some people have posted the feeling that almost all newspaper accounts should be either doubted or disbelieved. Jon, you cautioned Leanne about this very thing, while only two weeks ago, she had said the exact same thing to me! I feel that newspaper accounts should be used with caution if they seem implausible or far fetched. As I wrote to Leanne, if you throw out all newspaper accounts, you are just throwing out the baby with the bath water. I realize that many of the newspapers of the day used questionable practices, and may have played fast and loose with the truth, but to disregard or question every newspaper account doesn't make any sense to me. Allow me to give an example, one that is pertinent to this discussion:
"I heard there had been a murder in Miller's Court and on my way there I met my sisters brother-in-law, and he told me it was Marie. I went to the Court and there saw the police Inspector and told him who I was and where I had been the previous night." Lloyd's Newspaper, November 11th, 1888.
Now what about this paragraph would anyone doubt? There is no extraneous information to get wrong, no self aggrandizement, no salacious or exciting news, just the matter of fact account of Barnett hearing about the murder and going to talk to the police. What is the alternative? That the police went looking for him and were able to find him that afternoon? Or that he had heard about the murder and had walked into the nearest police station to give evidence? if the newspaper report is wrong, then why is it just as mundane as the alternatives? Why does it sound plausible and not sensational? Why should it be doubted out of hand?
Rabbi Leen, you are the second person to wonder if a "Yale" type lock would be too expensive for Miller's Court, but considering that Leanne and I have been going over this for the past two weeks, I guess that I haven't been too convincing, (although Anonymouse supports me!) so I'll go over this once more.
If you are saying that the lock on the door was a mortice type box lock, then by inference, you support the theory that the door was locked by the Ripper, who took away the key with him when he left. Newspaper reports of a spring lock on the door are wrong, and, more importantly, Joseph Barnett lied to Inspector Abberline about how to open the door. The mortice box lock needs a key to lock and unlock the door, either from the inside or the outside, that is the only way that it can be locked. This means that if you are inside the room and wish to lock the door, then you must turn the key. The box lock has no "catch" to turn inorder to unlock it.
If you support the theory that the lock on the door was a "Yale" type lock, what we call a deadbolt lock in North America, then you support the evidence given by Joseph Barnett that the key was lost and thus the only way you could unlock the doorwas to put your hand through the broken window pane and turn the "catch". This type of lock uses a spring to automatically lock the door whenever it is closed shut, thus as long as the door is closed, then the door is locked. Yale type locks are equipped with a small knob or catch which unlocks the door from the inside, while a key is needed to unlock the door from the outside.
Leanne, as you can see, with a "Yale' type lock, no key is needed to lock the door, it locks automatically whenever it is closed so the Ripper didn't need a key to "lock" the door, he just had to shut the door. As for why Barnett didn't testify at the inquest that the key was missing befor the fight, why would he, he wasn't asked. The Coroner, MacDonald, sped through the proceedings, ascertained the cause of death and closed the inquest. Abberline was asked about the key and he responded with what he had been told by Barnett that the key had been missing for some time.
Since Jon has reiterated a lot of what I have said, I will have to agree with him on almost all of his points, keep up the good work Jon!
Wolf. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 03:12 am | | Regarding the Yale lock - there seems to be some confusion as to the likelihood
that Kelly's lock was a Yale (or Yale-type) lock. Perhaps some degree of
clarification may be gained from this entry in the 1997 Grolier encyclopedia:
Linus Yale, Jr., b. Salisbury, N.Y., Apr. 4, 1821, d. Dec. 25, 1868, was an
American locksmith and manufacturer who invented the cylinder lock with pin
tumblers (patented in 1861 and 1865). He also invented (c.1851) a changeable lock,
whose key could be separated and reassembled to change the combination, and
(c.1862) the Monitor Bank Lock, which was the first dial-operated combination
lock. A few months before he died, Yale helped to organize the Yale Lock
Manufacturing Company that produced the cylinder lock.
So Jim Tully's date of 1844 for the patenting of the tumbler lock seems too early,
and the date of e should therefore be cautious in assuming that we are
familiar with the type of lock that was there. There seems to be no doubt though,
that the "spring-type lock" described by Abberline required no key for it to be
locked, but only for it to be unlocked. Are there any locksmith/historians
reading this who might be able to enlighten us as to alternative (possibly
pre-Yale) spring lock designs?
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Jon Smyth
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 03:15 am | | Hello Wolf, & All
Let me just give an example, what exactly does the following quote actually say?
"I heard there had been a murder in Miller's Court and on my way there I met my sisters brother-in-law, and he told me it was Marie. I went to the Court and there saw the police Inspector and told him who I was and where I had been the previous night." Lloyd's Newspaper, November 11th, 1888.
We know the Court had been sealed off from the public, we also know that Inspector Beck was there. Now we have Barnett going to the Court on hearing that Marie had been murdered, he must have asked for the Inspector, and spoke to him and told him who he was and where he had been.
None of this is an issue.
What the article does not say, and what we are being led to beleive is that Barnett was allowed through the Police barrier, into the Court to view the body through the hole in the window. And that he identified Marie in that way.
Whether this was the case or not, we cannot say, but the above article does not say this, nor even imply this. It is not recorded in the inquest testimony, and Barnett never mentioned it in his statement to the Police.
Also, Barnetts actions that day are hardly typical of a sadistic sexual murderer. But thats another discussion.
Have a great day, Jon |
Author: Leanne
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 06:04 am | | G'day John and everyone,
I never said that Barnett identified the body, by the "hair and ear". I quoted from this 'eyewitness' book that says that Joe 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 argued that it wasn't the "HAIR" at all.
As her ears were 'partly removed', he probably needed a close view and thought: "Yep, there hers alright!"
I can see that this suggests that he didn't identify her by 'peering through the window', prior to the door being forced.
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 08:34 am | | Sorry Leanne.
I had read your July 10th posting and picked up on your two statements below:
1 - '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".'
2 - '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.'
And then your following post on July 14th.....
'JOHN: What makes you say that Barnett wasn't even there that morning. He identified the body, by peering through the window...'
I understood the above statements to be connected, my appologies if they were not.
Also I notice that you quote from Paley....
'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.'
Thankyou, I had stated that it was not likely that Barnett was there in the morning, or before the door was forced.
Regards, Jon |
Author: RLeen
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 09:46 am | | Hello Everybody,
Wolf you state that, by inference, I "support the theory that the door was locked by the Ripper, who took away the key with him when he left. Newspaper reports of a spring lock on the door are wrong, and, more importantly, Joseph Barnett lied to Inspector Abberline about how to open the door."
Well, like everything else connected with the Ripper, things aren't so cut and dried. For one thing, there are other types of devices which can secure doors without being either Yale type or mortice locks. In a previous post I made, way back in the mists of time, I stated that the locking device was nothing other than a simple bolt which probably sat underneath the mortice.
Set in this context I imply that the Ripper bolted the door when he fled, that newspapers have always printed lies, damned lies and exclusives, and that Barnett may have lied to Abberline....er, if he had reason to!
I think it is all about interpretation, but I feel that the lock was almost certainly not a Yale type lock for the following reasons:
Expense!
The fact that someone peeped through a keyhole!
If it had been a Yale lock why attack the door with a pick when pressure at the locking point would have been sufficient to gain entry!
They may not have been in use in the UK (ok this is a bit weak)!
Abberline spoke of the pair "pushing the catch of the door back" nothing about the latest in spring-loaded acoutrements direct from the US of A. Semantics and interpretation, a catch may only be a hook and an eye.
Er, that's it.
So on the whole, disbelief in the myth of the Yale lock and disbelief in other aspects of testimony are not mutually exclusive.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: keithtyler
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 12:11 pm | | Hello Everyone,
I questioned the type of lock in use, because the evidence surrounding how the door was secured is so contradictory.
The door could have been bolted. If so, the reports on how the door was secured are inaccurate (they say locked).
I believe it was in a newspaper report that the rent collector peeped through the keyhole. This is also mentioned in The Mammoth book of JTR. This would indicate a mortice lock.
I don't think I've seen any reference to the catch being a part of a lock mechanism, however, using a catch on a lock would likely indicate a Yale lock, as does the Abberline statement of a "Spring type lock". I believe Abberlines statement was also from a newspaper report.
This leads me to five scenarios:
1. The door was bolted (the murderer entered the room with Kelly, or had known her previously, but after the key had been lost).
2. Mary had two locks.
3. There was a mortice lock only (the muderer had the lost key).
4. There was a Yale type lock.
5. The ripper could walk through walls.
I go for no. 1.
Regards,
Keith |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 01:19 pm | | Hi All,
Very interesting discussion. I like the idea that the broken window pane through which Kelly and Barnett worked the catch was not the one broken accidentally as a result of their spat on Oct 30. Unless we have specific information as to which window was broken that night, that seems to be an assumption by those who favor Barnett as a suspect. I.e., it was the same pane so they could not have used that means of entry prior to Oct 30, hence the key must have gone missing at about that time, hence Barnett likely took it when he moved out.
It's entirely possible they returned to Miller's Court late one night several weeks before the murder, fished through their pockets and discovered they had lost the key (frequently, a person doesn't realize that they've lost a key until the very moment they need it to open something), and broke the window deliberately in order to gain entry to their room. If that's the case, it's doubtful they would have volunteered to the landlord that they'd lost their key and broken a window, especially if they were already behind on the rent. This scenario explains the "they" and "lost for some time" in Barnett's explanation to Abberline, and also neatly explains why McCarthy didn't know about the alternate means of entry and took a pickax to his own door.
There are a couple of things that puzzle me, one of which is Abberline's inquest testimony when referring to pulling back the catch that "it was quite easy." This strongly implies, at least to me, that Abberline either saw this demonstrated or tried it himself at some time after interviewing Barnett. But how could this be?? If Barnett, or anyone else who may have known about it, demonstrated how it was done then there would have been no need to break down the door. Once the door had been broken down, it would hardly have been possible for Abberline to try it himself later. Anyone care to comment?
Another thing that puzzles me is this looking through the keyhole business. I have an account of the inquest from the Nov 13 Daily Telegraph, here is Bowyer's testimony:
"I went for rent, which was in arrears. 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 spout where there is a broken window - it is the smallest window."
"There was a curtain. I put my hand through the broken pane and lifted the curtain. I saw two pieces of flesh lying on the table."
"The second time I looked I saw a body on this bed, and blood on the floor. I at once went very quietly to Mr. McCarthy. We then stood in the shop, and I told him what I had seen. We both went to the police-station, but first of all we went to the window, and McCarthy looked in to satisfy himself."
Bowyer is clearly saying that both he and McCarthy looked through the window, and the word "keyhole" never appears anywhere in the text. What is the source of the looking through the keyhole story? Newspaper accounts only? Do we have more "shiny farthings" here, or is the account of the inquest I have incomplete?? I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify this point for me.
Thanks all,
Jim |
Author: Leanne
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 04:06 pm | | G'day Jim,
If you look at: 'Archive Through July 8, 1999' and see my post on JULY 2 and read the next few posts by WOLF and I, you will see that we debated this KEYHOLE/WINDOW business then.
It seems that WOLF got his information from different books to me. Some sources do state that Bowyer looked through a keyhole but I think the 'Keyhole' business 'died' then.
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 06:25 pm | | Hey Guy's & Gals
I stumbled across this in the Daily Chronicle, Nov 10, 1888
'Bowyer went [to #13] but when he knocked at the door he could not get an answer, he looked through the keyhole, but the key was missing.'
Wolf,
something you posted about the location of Crossinghams, this is also from the above news article, but it is presented as the 'words' of McCarthy....
'Dorset St. is never deserted either day or night, when the public houses close, the lodging houses begin to get busy. The big one over the way (opposite) kept by Crossingham, is open all night. And it exactly faces the entrance to my court'
Make of that what you will, people.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Wolf
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 11:02 pm | | Hello all.
I think Guy has it right, that a "Yale" lock is not the right description of the type of lock that were looking at here. Certainly it was not a tumbler type lock but as I said before, what we call a deadbolt lock here in North America. Thanks for the destinction Guy.
Jon, I don't have a copy of the Kelly inquest, (I've ordered a copy of the book but it's been nearly two months and so far no book,) so I don't know exactly what was asked of Barnett. Was he asked how he had heard of the murder? or what his actions had been once he had heard? In effect, how do we know that He didn't make it to Miller's Court that day. The whole Crossingham's question came from Anonymous who pointed out that Crossingham may have owned two lodging houses on Dorset Street, one at 35, the other I have no idea so you may be right about number 14 being owned by Crossingham.
Rabbi Leen, unless you can state what the cost of a spring loaded lock would be in 1888, just saying "expense" ain't gonna cut it. You mentioned that Bowyer peeped through the keyhole and that this would indicate a mortice box lock, again, that ground has been covered by Leanne and myself. I advocate an old, unused Mortice box lock on the door, along side a newer spring loaded lock. Leanne countered that there was no evidence that Bowyer or anyone else peeped through any keyhole, (this went back and forth for several posts.)
Leanne also pointed out that the word "catch" could mean anything like a bolt that just slid across to make fast the door. However, this would mean that the Ripper, after shutting the door, went around to the window, removed the rags that were stuffed into the broken panes (if there were rags stuffed in the panes,) put his hand in and slid back the bolt then replaced the rags before walking away. I'm not going to say that this is impossible but it seems like a big risk, especially since it was in broad daylight (wink).
As for "attacking" the door with the pick, it is my understanding that McCarthy just stuck the point of one end in between the door and the jamb and just levered open the door, not actually causing a serious amount of damage. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pressure at the locking point would have been sufficient to gain entry". Is this what I have just described McCarthy doing?
Jim, Ibelieve that Abberline returned to Miller's Court some time after interviewing Barnett, certainly the doctors did to sift through the ashes in the grate, and I believe Abberline accompanied them.
I was thinking about what Red Demon had said about fingerprints on the door or handle and it reminded me of a story regarding Miller's Court that I had read when I was a boy. The account told of someone returning to number 13 years later and being shown the room which was little changed from 1888. The visit ended with the, then current occupants removing a picture from the wall and there underneith was a bloody handprint left by the Ripper. Those are the only details that I can remember and all I can say is that the visitor wasn't "Kit" from The Toronto Globe and Mail.
Wolf. |
Author: Keith Tyler
Friday, 16 July 1999 - 12:29 am | | Hello All,
I'm still frustrated about this whole "type of lock" thing. I still think there was only one lock on the door and that was a mortice lock.
Do we know when the key was actually determined to be missing? I assume there is no report of anyone asking McCarthy for a spare key (or keys, if there were two locks - at that point they wouldn't know which one was locked).
The other thing that causes me to wonder is the account that Hutchinson gives at the inquest:
"They both went up the Court together. I then went to the court to see if I could see them or not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they came out. They did not, so I went away."
I do not know about the orientation of the house to where Hutchinson was watching, but in my minds eye, I see Kelly having to walk past her door, around the corner, pull the catch, and return to her front door to let herself (and the gentleman) in. If this was the case, I think Hutchinson (following from a safe distance) would have seen them enter her Abode. If she used a bolt, then it would be possible that she didn't secure the bolt before she went out, therefore, they could be inside before Hutchinson got to his vantage point.
I know this is speculation, for one I don't know how far behind the couple was Hutchinson, but I've aired my thoughts at least so it can be disproved, hopefully to inspire a new avenue to follow.
Keith |
Author: Leanne
Friday, 16 July 1999 - 01:26 am | | G'day Jim,
re. Your post on Thursday July 15th - 08:19am.
Because you "like" the idea that the broken window pane, was not the one broken at the time of the fight, aren't you using your 'assumptions'!!!!!
When Barnett gave, (or should I say when Abberline gave Joes explanation), he said: "Lost for some time". Unfortunately we don't know how long 'some time' means. It could mean a week, it could mean a month.
The part: 'It was quite easy', should be "...,which was easily done", was probably part of what Joe said to Abberline.. It does not indicate to me, that this was 'demonstrated' at all.
LEANNE! |
Author: RLeen
Friday, 16 July 1999 - 07:01 am | | Hello Everybody,
Well, isn't this quite a lively little discussion. Call me a party pooper if you will because, here goes, some further thoughts on the anti-Yale type lock.
Wolf, I'll answer your comments first since you seem to be my main protagonist (and because I'm determined to be proved right for once!!)
According to Thomas Bowyer's testimony there was no mention of paper or rags draught proofing the empty window. Incidentally, I never mentioned Bowyer as peeping through a keyhole, but that's neither here nor there. Therefore, the murderer did not have to lean through the window, bolt the door, replace any stuffing, then escape unseen.
Of all the reports I've read, concerning the authority's mode of entrance, the language is unequivocably similar stating variations on a theme of the door being broken down. (Please imagine broken down in italics.) Could you explain your source for M'Carthy's pivotal entrance? Obviously the method you described is unlike the battering ram approach implied by the books. One other point regarding this approach is that if the pick-axe was required to facilitate entrance in this way it means that the killer would have to reach through the open window...etc, to secure a Yale type lock. Remember, if it was spring loaded, movement of the lock would be required to allow the door to shut. A Yale lock, with the door simply closed over, would be opened by a street wise policeman in about twenty seconds. This is a bit vague and if anyone else can express it better I'd be extremely gratified.
Finally, it's back to semantics and interpretation again. Wolf, you termed the lock a deadbolt which is a term used in the UK...but for a different small aquatic mammal. The notion of nations being divided by a common language perchance? What we Brits call a deadbolt is a simple snib, or bolt, of the type so common in toilets....and Victorian quarters. A Yale lock is usually described under permutations of latch, not catch, giving rise to such evocative expressions as "latch-key children" -(school kids whose parents are not in when they reach home), "latch on" - (sudden understanding of a topic) and finally, though there are others, "off the latch" - (suspected of some nefarious activity but ultimately proved innocent).
So what point does this last ramble try to make? What subtle meaning lies behind the cascade of words, so oblique yet so profound, that have traversed the globe in a fraction of a second? How can these words, mere collections of letters structured to impart information, glistening with so much insight, perspicacity and capernoited dwellings not fail to illuminate the enigma that is wrapped in a conundrum that is wrapped in a final paragraph of extreme pretension and waffle and pseudo-intellectuality.
Well you tell me...
On a more serious note, have a great weekend everybody and if you're going to Blackpool just remember that today marks the start of the Glasgow Fair.
Finally, an issue of Blackthorpe's Gazette from 1887 advertises door snibs at two for a farthing.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 16 July 1999 - 10:33 am | | Hi All,
G'day Leanne, I checked the archive as you suggested. My apologies for re-hashing ground that had already been covered, it seems I joined this thread a bit late.
BTW, I'm inclined to agree with you in regards to trusting the inquest testimony over the newspaper accounts. While I think Wolf was absolutely correct that we must not simply ignore newspaper accounts, in this particular case the newspaper accounts are not merely unsubstantiated, they directly contradict the inquest testimony. Bowyer was not a suspect as far as we know, he had nothing to hide and no reason to lie, so I'm inclined to believe his testimony. Just one man's opinion, FWIW.
In any event, this keyhole/window business is probably a very minor point with respect to the more important question of whether or not a key was required to lock the door and the consequent necessity of MJK's killer having had the key. Even if we could establish beyond any doubt that a mortice type lock was present, we still would not know if it was in working condition, and whether or not it was the only lock on the door.
About a year ago, someone posted that they had constructed a full-scale replica of the room at 13 Miller's Court, partly to see if it was possible to reach through one of the broken panes and open the door. This poster provided a great deal of detail regarding how they had obtained the dimensions of all the various components of the room. It was far too long ago for me to recall specifics, but I do recall the conclusion reached was that it was possible to reach the door through one and only one of the broken panes (naturally, I can't recall if it was the pane on the lower right or the upper right :-))
As I said earlier, I'm unaware of any evidence that specifies which pane was broken on Oct 30. But, if you accept that opening the door could only have been done through one particular pane, then it becomes a key (no pun intended :-)) point with regards to that tenet of the Barnett theory that assumes the key must have gone missing at about that same time, and thus Barnett likely took it when he moved out. I freely admit that the alternative scenario I proposed is mere speculation, but no more so than the above theory given that the door could only be reached through one particular broken pane, and that we don't know which one was broken on Oct. 30. The scenario I proposed is a perfectly feasible alternative explanation for the broken window and the missing key. I'd even suggest that it is a more likely explanation by virtue of being a more mundane event - people lose or misplace keys far more often than they steal them for the purpose of committing murder. Also, if Kelly and Barnett deliberately broke the window because they were locked out, they would surely have chosen the only pane that would have allowed them entry. Again, this is more likely the manner in which the "correct" pane was broken, rather than accidentally during a row.
Leanne, I'm curious about the different wording, "it was quite easy" versus "which was easily done". The account of the inquest I have is the one that appeared in the Nov 13 Daily Telegraph, I don't know if this is a 100% account or not. May I ask, in which version does the "which was easily done" appear??
Wolf: thanks for your comments. I thought I read somewhere that the door to Kelly's room was boarded up after her body was removed, so I must have assumed (there I go again, my bad) that the door had been destroyed. I realize now that was probably not the case, that you are correct in that McCarthy probably used the minimal force necessary to open the door rather than demolish his own property and have to replace it later at his own expense.
I'll go dig back through the archives, see if I can find that replica of 13 Miller's Court post.
Cheers all,
Jim |
Author: Jon
Friday, 16 July 1999 - 03:44 pm | | Crossinghams ?
The London times, Nov 10th 1888.
'It may be mentioned that nearly the whole of the houses in this street are common lodging-houses and the one opposite where the murder was enacted has accomodation for some 300 men, and is fully occupied every night'.
Manchester Guardian, Nov 10th, 1888.
Reffering to Dorset Street, 'It was here that Annie Chapman ....lived. And by a strange coincidence the scene of the present crime is a court directly opposite the house to which that unfortunate woman was in the habit of resorting'.
Jon |
Author: Jon
Friday, 16 July 1999 - 04:07 pm | | Jim
I think you'll find it was either Bob C. or Bob H.
I recall the same discussion...however.
This business of the lock(s) brings up all kinds of sideline issues.
How could Barnett reach the lock(s) from through the hole in the window, and which hole, and in which window?
The two main descriptions that I have refering to broken windows comes firstly from Bowyer:
'Knocking at the door, I got no answer and I knocked again & again, receiving no reply I passed round the corner by the gutter spout where there is a broken window - it is the smallest window'
'Bowyer pointed out the window, which was the nearest one to the entrance'
(Daily Telegraph, Nov 13)
Then Bowyer again:
'I mean the farthest pane of the first window, the small one'
(Inquest)
Then Dr Phillips:
'It had two windows in the court, two panes in the lesser window were broken and as the door was locked I looked through the lower of the broken panes'
(Daily Telegraph, Nov 13)
So, from these descriptions and the associated photo, we are left with the conclusion that the smaller right side window had two broken panes. Of the 4 panes, the bottom left one was the one Bowyer & Phillips looked through. And from Phillips statement it would appear that one of the upper two was also broken.
It might not take a Sherlock Holmes to determine which one, as Barnett has told us that he reached through a hole to unlock the door.
Seems to me that the upper right side pane is the most logical.
BUT !!
Take a look at the side door, I (with difficulty) counted 23 (give or take a brick) bricks, from the step to the start of the arch.
Now the average house brick in those days was approx 3.5" including cement.
23 x 3.5" = 80", the standard door height.
The average location on a door for a mortise lock was 34" up from the bottom. Which is approximatly 10 bricks up.
Barnett was said to be 5' 7" tall on his Porters licence, at age 20, in 1888 he was 30 yrs old.
I am 5' 11" and the top of my shoulder is roughly 5' from the ground.
Barnetts shoulder may well have 11” or 10” below his head height (based on my example)
This would give the top of his shoulder height as 57”.
(are you all still with me?)
Look at the horizontal rail in the smaller window, the centre horizontal rail is pretty well between the 7th & 8th brick down from the start (bottom) of the arch. The window arch & door arch appear to be at the same level.
So 3.5" x 7" = 24.5"
The top of the door (bottom of the arch) is 80" from the floor, minus 24.5" = 55.5" from the ground to the centre horizontal rail in the smaller right side window.
The hole, if in the top window (right pane) is as high as Barnetts shoulder. So, how did he 'easily' reach through?
The rail is at 55.5” and the top of Barnetts shoulder is 57”.
Lets suppose he nelt on one knee and pressed his left side up against the window frame to reach through with his left arm.
The hole if in this top pane had to be big enough to get his entire arm through, even if the complete pane of glass was removed his reach would be over a rail that is 55" from the floor and diagonally across and down to a door catch that is about 34" from the floor
The length of the bricks behind the spout is hard to determine, but it looks like one brick is 3 x longer than it is high, (3 x 3.5” = 10.5”) so lets say either 9” or 10” long, there maybe a join in the bricks behind the spout that we can’t see.
The window frame looks about 3” or 4” wide at the side near the wall. It’s about as wide as one of those house bricks. So approximatly there might be a distance of 14” from the edge of the window pane to the outside surface of the brick building, just beyond the spout.
The length of the brick on the door side and including the door frame may well be about the same, the picture appears to indicate the brick being just slightly longer on the door side. But near enough the same.
Ok, making a diagonal measurement from the reference points we have approximated, I get (on my mock-up at home) 28” distance, from the inside edge of the window frame (the corner where the horizontal rail meets the window frame) to an approximate handle location of a mortise lock.
My reach from underarm to finger tip is exactly 28”, and Barnett was 4” smaller in height, than me. So, was the latch/catch in the vicinity of the mortise lock ?
He would have not found it an easy reach, and quite likely ‘impossible’ for Mary Jane to reach it, especially in the womens attire of the day.
So, where was the latch/catch?
I recall that when people install a second lock / latch / catch / sliding bolt or chain, they very often tend to install them on the door at about chest or shoulder height, rarely lower down, at waist height.
If we are talking about a second latch / catch then it may well have been installed higher up the door, and consequently within easy reach of someone with their arm through the window.
The London Times, Nov 10th:
‘A correspondent who last night saw the room in which the murder was committed, says............’The lock of the door was a spring one’
Ok, so it’s only approximations & speculation, but we just might be looking at two locks here.
I’m tuckered out now..........off to the chatroom
Jon |
|
|
|
|
