|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
The missing key
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The missing key
Author: Lisa Muir
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 10:38 pm |        | Hi Joseph - Yes, I wrote my last message before reading Sunday's posts.. I see, now, that Mr. Carter did respond positively , and in a post to Rosemary on a different board, actually explained himself. I was hasty with my criticisms. And, as my initial response to Mr. Carter stated, I look forward to reading more on his theories.
Just Call Me,
Lisa |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 11:35 pm | | G'day Tracy,
Check for youself. Go to 'Official Documents'/ 'Inquest Testimony'/ 'Mary jane Kelly' in the main Casebook, and read the testimony of Inspector Abberline. No one said: "springbolt".
This is an example of how statements get 'twisted'.
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 04:52 am | | G'day Tracy and everyone,
In 113 years from now, if Bob's book is the only one still in existence, Ripperologists will read that statement and think that Joseph Barnett actually said "Springbolt".
Tracy, no photographer or anyone entered Kelly's room before 1:30 p.m., when orders came to break the door down. They thought the bloodhounds were coming, why would they let a photographer leave his scent in the room?
No, the window panes were removed and the first photographs were taken by leaning in.
LEANNE! |
Author: Stephen Powell
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 09:25 am | | Dear Casebook Detectives,friends & Melvin....
What follows is an e-mail sent to Shirley Harrison by myself,
as part of our on-going 'assimulation' of my past memories of meeting Anne Graham in Australia in 1968/69.
Dear Shirley,
Sorry to get you in a boil but let me set you on the right path.
Vicki,she now refers to herself as Victoria,first contacted me after my exhausting efforts to find her.
We spoke for no longer than ten minutes and I indeed had to ask her two leading question and that was;did she remember 'a diary of jack the ripper and a nurse at the sutherland hospital whom I had met,who claimed she had it'?
The rest of the conversation was 'catching-up' talk and did not refer to the diary or surrounding events.
I was very aware at the time of speaking to her of the need to be careful that I did not influence her thoughts on this subject.
I have not spoken to her since that call from her last week and shall not do so again,until you have spoken at length to her yourself.
Please do record her statements but please show me a transcript of her words before they go public on the internet.
These are the facts as I know them concerning Victoria:
a)She met and became friends with Anne Graham.
b)She was aware of the JTR diary.
c)She was asked to contribute to the written material of the diary.
d)She told me that 'They' were serious about releasing this diary to the public.
e)She told me that in the Future if I remembered the diary and told of its writing and no-one believed me,that she would then,tell her story to back me up. (We shall see on this point,wont we)
Now,I still dont know if the diary is real or not,for all I know it may be as Anne said to me that;'My father has it....'or on the other hand it maybe a complete fabrication and she set out to write a 'Diary' based on her initial idea and enlisting as co-writers,her new found friends in australia.
Now listen very carefully on this next point:
Victoria and I had a friend at the time,who was obsessed with historical and modern crime.
I had known him from the age of fifteen and travelled australia with him for many years as performers.
When I went out on my own to record my music,he became very jealous of my success and his attitude to me was that I had left him in the lurch.
I met him again a few years later and had coffee with him at his mothers house in Cronulla,a short distance from the sutherland hospital.
He still had the shits with me and his contempt for me was obvious in his manner.I was trying to be an old friend and even asked him if he would like to come and record with me.He was in a foul mood and I was feeling like I should get up and just leave this arrogant bastard to his own morbid self.
As we were talking with his mother present he stated that he had been writting a book and that it would be published and that he would be famous before me (!?)
His mother piped-up and said to him; "IF YOU DONT GO TO JAIL FIRST FOR FORGERY!" This statement was interesting but this familly was into all sorts of things and I put it down to one of their idiotic quirks.
I asked him what the book was about and he said it was to the effect 'Historical'.
There followed a short discussion between his mum and himself to the effect that,He believed the 'book' to be true and his mother,laughingly
not.By this time I wanted to go and did so shortly after.
I have not seen this person since that time.
I give you his name,so that you can ask Victoria about him also.
She knew him very well.
His name is:
(available for casebook researchers by e-mail to steve powell only)
Born: Birkenheaad,Liverpool,England.
He would have been born in 1950,I'd say.
Interesting isn't it Shirley?
Another coincidence? or just another unbelievable story from steve powell....
You can believe what you must but all I have said is the TRUTH and I dont care now if anyone else believes it or not.
However,I respect your work Shirley and want you to know all of what I have heard and seen.
The Phone number of Victoria's is : (classified as you will understand)
Please keep me informed,so as we can work together on this.
bye for now Shirley.
Steve powell.
10/2/2001
ps
Why not find out what school Anne went to and see if one of her classmates, match names with this person in question?
speak soon.
steve powell |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 09:30 am | | Joseph,
Do you really feel it is necessary to continue insulting someone who can no longer fight back? Not altogether nice. Why not leave it where it belongs..in the past. |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 09:44 am | | Hinton states in his book ’..the Doctor then requested that no attempt should be made to enter the room until the bloodhounds had been sent for.(I know they probably thought the bloodhounds were still coming (My Brackets)) These dogs had been loaned (according to the police – hired according to their owner) to assist in the tracking and capture of Jack the Ripper. They had in fact been returned some time before but this was not widely known’. (ibid. page 123). In same paragraph :’…Joe Barnett later informed police that the key had been lost some time previously, but it could be opened by reaching through the broken window and pulling back the ‘spring bolt’. (ibid. page 23)
Whether or not Hinton can substantiate the above I couldn’t care less. It is a logical and well thought out theory. I already said in an earlier posting that when Hinton described the timeline of MK's death, that he had mentioned Barnett and the 'Spring Bolt' it appeared contradictory to his chapter on the 'Mysterious Key' He could have said Barnett told them he reached through the window to pull back the Night latch, but Hinton probably used a name that would best describe the Night Latch, which might be a spring bolt. Whether it is ‘Spring bolt’ ‘spring lock’ or whether an unsuspecting and gullible public will be betrayed by too much speculation on the missing key resulted in the myth that the lock if it existed was a ‘spring bolt’.
The door was locked therefore there is a lock of some kind, the Night Latch was cheap and available, it had something that can be described as a spring bolt. Mr Hinton has knowledge of a catalogue with the Night latch, and he posts here sometimes so maybe he can send in a picture.
Tracy |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 06:49 pm | | G'day Tracy,
I am not doubting Mr. Hinton's expertise about locks. It may have been a 'spring Bolt', but the simple fact is that no one said: "spring bolt".
Barnett told one person about the alternative mode of entry....Inspector Abberline, who then told the courtroom.
I'd like to read what Bob has to say about this too!
LEANNE! |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 06:59 pm | | Hi Alegria,
You are of course correct, and thank you for directing me back onto the road of fair play, and good manners.
As always, you have my best regards. J |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 08:42 pm | | Dear Joseph,
I suspect that you are one of life's gentlemen at heart :-]
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 09:24 pm | | Oh Leanne Leanne Leanne
You were doing so well too (in your post of 4:52am), explaining to Tracy why no-one was allowed to enter the room and contaminate the scene.
But where on earth did you get the idea that photo's were taken by removing windows and leaning in?
The equipment of the day was the tripod, even indicated in an issue on IPN of Nov. 17th. They took the pictures from inside following the Doctors initial investigation.
The only account I am aware of about windows being removed is in the Times, have you, or anyone, come across another independent statement in support of this story?
The windows were boarded up after the investigation was complete, but as for them being removed, why?.
Removing the windows would be a drastic enough intrusion of the crime scene to at least get a mention at the inquest, and the risks of disturbing the crime scene make the very idea extremely implausible.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 06:34 am | | Oh Jon, Jon, Jon,
I remember someone pointing out the story in 'The Times' about the window being removed. I'd say that the coat blocking everyones view of the body, was pushed aside and that reporter recorded it wrong!...SORRY!
Reading 'The Illustrated Police News' of 17 November 1888, it says: 'Dr. Dukes, Dr. Phillips.......(etc), all saw the body, of which a photograph had been taken, shortly before two O'clock.........................................................................................................After the examination the windows were boarded up and the door padlocked.'
Thanks for correcting me!
LEANNE! |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 07:17 am | | Hi Leanne and Jon
This is a confusing issue. I am thinking of the time scale, because the door wasn't forced until what was it 1:30 - 2:00pm?, and considerable time was wasted waiting to see if the bloodhounds would arrive, I agree with Leanne, I don't think that while they were waiting for the Bloodhounds, the Photographer entered the room, via the window, but maybe once the message came back that the bloodhounds were not coming he might have.
Rather than use Abberline's testimony he uses Bowyers and Doctor Phillips, possibly because this reveals the difficult and almost impossible effort (especially Mary Kelly, unless she performed acrobatics on a drainpipe) to open the lock via the window. Barnet had left Mary's dwelling I think nine days earlier, and although he could have opened the door through the window, (with a lot of difficulty), I doubt Mary would or could have.
Tracy |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 11:06 am | | Well as for now I am bowing out of the Casebook message board (It is soooo addictive), and my work is suffering. As I am around computers all day, I am tempted to connect to the Casebook. I’ve got a headache of all headaches and my hubby thinks I have lost the plot altogether! I know I only satisfactorily resolved (IMO) the ‘key’ saga, and I am satisfied that the Maybrick diary is a fake, albeit and ingenious fake! One of things I have learned form the message board is that JTR is a complex and absorbing subject, that needs time and a great deal of knowledge to keep up with the topics discussed. I wish you all the very best!
Tracy |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 12:15 pm | | Hi Leanne
The Times 10 November reported a correspondent who had seen the interior of the room and described 'the lock of the door as a spring one'. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 05:24 pm | | G'day Paul,
Ok mate, I wasn't doubting for one minute that the lock may have been a spring one. I am just concerned that the words from Barnetts exact quote, were altered. I'm all for preserving everything the way it was.
Reading the book: 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion', Frederick George Abberline said at Kellys inquest: ".....I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time & that they opened the door by reaching through the window, a pipe.....'
Is this information from authentic papers? If so, he said nothing about how easy it was, and nothing about a 'catch' or 'spring bolt'. If those few extra words were added later by one of the many authors, no wonder no one can solve this case today!!!!!!
Leanne! |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 06:44 pm | | The issue of the windows being removed keeps surfacing from time to time, I thought, out of interest, if anyone has heard/read about the provenance of this photo.....
Admittedly this photo could have been taken almost anytime after the murder, (unlikely to have been taken before) but for those fortunate enough to have a clear copy a minor detail is apparent, that is that two of the panes of glass in the smaller (right side) window are broken and a solid dark section in the glass is easy enough to see up close.
Dr Phillips, in his testimony, stated that two panes were broken "in the window nearest the passage" so this photo supports that statement, and from Bowyers statement it is clear that the bottom left pane was one of the two, therefore (as previously pointed out) the other pane had to be the one at the upper right. As depicted in the photo,....of which a clear copy is published in Stewart's "Ultimate", and no self respecting Ripperologist would be without it.
(We've been over this a thousand times, right?)
What we have not pointed out is that in the press (The Times, Manchester Guardian, etc) mention is made that after Phillips gained entrance to the room a preliminary examination was conducted, the first of two. BUT...."in the meantime a photographer was sent for and photographs were taken".
Dr Phillips also describes the back yard of #13 and says, "....two windows, I produce a photograph I had taken".
So, the point is that this strongly indicates that the photographer arrived AFTER 1.30pm (when the door was forced), therefore the picture above, which might very well be the one refered to by Dr Phillips, shows the window frames in place.....they were not at any time prior to 1.30pm ever removed.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 03:21 am | | G'day Everyone,
OK OK I no longer believe the window frames were removed. That photograph above, John, was taken after 1:30 before Dr. Phillips did his thing. I just read a Canadian newspaper, (I forget the name), that said a photographer was called to take photos of inside and out, just before the examination.
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 06:03 pm | | G'day Jon,
The Globe [Canada], 12 November 1888, says: 'Before the post mortem examination a photographer was set to work on the court and house'.
LEANNE |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 14 February 2001 - 07:19 pm | | Yes Leanne, the initial preliminary exam is mentioned as taking place before 2.00pm, then the photographer did his thing, then they got down to the main post mortem.
The above poste wasn't specifically aimed at your good self, just at anyone who has an interest. Do you recall Red Demon going at it tooth & nail in support of the "windows being removed?".
Best regards, Jon |
Author: R Court
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 11:37 am | | Hi all,
Coming back to a point raised long, long ago concerning the photo as boarded by Jon, Jon, you have a copy that is good enough to detect broken panes in the right window. Can you also confirm that the apparent white curtain in the left window is indeed that, or could it be just light reflected from the inside window wall?
My copy is just not good enough to determine that with any surity but the photo does indicate that no curtain was fitted to the right window, this being supported by evidence concerning Harvey's coat.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 12:52 pm | | Bob.
My trusty magnifying glass would let me strongly support the suggestion that it is a curtain, folds, shadows and all. Nothing of the sort behind the smaller window, but then the Doctors needed light so they would have removed the coat and pulled back the curtains. It all fits.
Nice to see you back.
Regards, Jon |
Author: R Court
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 03:37 pm | | Hi Jon,
Thanks for the welcome and the information.
The reason for the left window curtain question is that if, as claimed by some, Jack had made a roaring fire to see what he was doing, without a curtain in the left window anyone could have looked in to see him on a lovely floodlit stage as he desintegrated the poor unfortunant. This would have not added to his reputation as being ruthlessly efficient and invisable.
As E. Prater stated that she saw light in the room earlier, and according to reports a not-used (as opposed to unused) candle was the only other means of illumination, either Mary lit the fire, retired to bed and got butchered in it's light (it apparntly burnt for some time) or the light Prater saw was from the candle and Jack stoked up much later i.e. ca. 4 a.m. in which case the police report about the candle was wrong.
As Jack was already in the habit of demonstrating, however, he could filet his victims more or less in the dark, as e.g. Mitre Square showed. Maybe he did the same here, and the fire is a red herring.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Stephen Powell
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 01:16 am | | ALL CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS PAGE.
Here is a copy of an earlier posting that some of you may not know about.
Since I posted this I now know that Anne Graham is a prime accomplice to the forgery of the diary and the male person referred to below is also involved.
Shirley harrison is making enquiries to the validity of my statements but as yet I have heard nothing back from her.
By Stephen Powell on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 09:25 am: Edit
Dear Casebook Detectives,friends & Melvin....
What follows is an e-mail sent to Shirley Harrison by myself,
as part of our on-going 'assimulation' of my past memories of meeting Anne Graham in Australia in 1968/69.
Dear Shirley,
Sorry to get you in a boil but let me set you on the right path.
Vicki,she now refers to herself as Victoria,first contacted me after my exhausting efforts to find her.
We spoke for no longer than ten minutes and I indeed had to ask her two leading question and that was;did she remember 'a diary of jack the ripper and a nurse at the sutherland hospital whom I had met,who claimed she had it'?
The rest of the conversation was 'catching-up' talk and did not refer to the diary or surrounding events.
I was very aware at the time of speaking to her of the need to be careful that I did not influence her thoughts on this subject.
I have not spoken to her since that call from her last week and shall not do so again,until you have spoken at length to her yourself.
Please do record her statements but please show me a transcript of her words before they go public on the internet.
These are the facts as I know them concerning Victoria:
a)She met and became friends with Anne Graham.
b)She was aware of the JTR diary.
c)She was asked to contribute to the written material of the diary.
d)She told me that 'They' were serious about releasing this diary to the public.
e)She told me that in the Future if I remembered the diary and told of its writing and no-one believed me,that she would then,tell her story to back me up. (We shall see on this point,wont we)
Now,I still dont know if the diary is real or not,for all I know it may be as Anne said to me that;'My father has it....'or on the other hand it maybe a complete fabrication and she set out to write a 'Diary' based on her initial idea and enlisting as co-writers,her new found friends in australia.
Now listen very carefully on this next point:
Victoria and I had a friend at the time,who was obsessed with historical and modern crime.
I had known him from the age of fifteen and traveled australia with him for many years as performers.
When I went out on my own to record my music,he became very jealous of my success and his attitude to me was that I had left him in the lurch.
I met him again a few years later and had coffee with him at his mothers house in Cronulla,a short distance from the sutherland hospital.
He still had the shits with me and his contempt for me was obvious in his manner.I was trying to be an old friend and even asked him if he would like to come and record with me.He was in a foul mood and I was feeling like I should get up and just leave this arrogant bastard to his own morbid self.
As we were talking with his mother present he stated that he had been writing a book and that it would be published and that he would be famous before me (!?)
His mother piped-up and said to him; "IF YOU DONT GO TO JAIL FIRST FOR FORGERY!" This statement was interesting but this family was into all sorts of things and I put it down to one of their idiotic quirks.
I asked him what the book was about and he said it was to the effect 'Historical'.
There followed a short discussion between his mum and himself to the effect that,He believed the 'book' to be true and his mother,laughingly
not.By this time I wanted to go and did so shortly after.
I have not seen this person since that time.
I give you his name,so that you can ask Victoria about him also.
She knew him very well.
His name is:
(available for casebook researchers by e-mail to steve powell only)
Born: Birkenheaad,Liverpool,England.
He would have been born in 1950,I'd say.
Interesting isn't it Shirley?
Another coincidence? or just another unbelievable story from steve powell....
You can believe what you must but all I have said is the TRUTH and I dont care now if anyone else believes it or not.
However,I respect your work Shirley and want you to know all of what I have heard and seen.
The Phone number of Victoria's is : (classified as you will understand)
Please keep me informed,so as we can work together on this.
bye for now Shirley.
Steve powell.
10/2/2001
ps
Why not find out what school Anne went to and see if one of her classmates, match names with this person in question?
speak soon.
steve powell
(this was the end of this message)
I shall see what you all have to say about this and if Shirley would like to comment,I would be most interested to hear her updated news.
regards.
steve powell
29-4-2001 |
Author: shirley harrison
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 05:11 am | | | Steve....until we have found Mr "P" (I have his name but for obvious reasons cant put it on the boards) there isnt too much I CAN say. So far we have not managed to trace him although Victoria is trying. Nor do I want to ask Anne because her response could be swayed by the information you give.....so I hope it doesnt leak to her now that it is on the board. As soon as I can find him...I will report....of course.....Any other assistance would be welcome - but not, for fear of legal entanglements - on the boards.... |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 07:46 am | | Dear Everyone,
I have just been catching up on the boards and have noticed a certain amount of confusion creeping in re: the type of lock fitted to Mary Kelly's door.(Leanne Perry, Tracy Williams etc)
Leanne seems a bit put out that I am referring to a 'spring bolt' where no reference to such is to be found in any of the contemporary sources. The sources I refer to are the London Times for 10th November 1888 where the correspondent refers to the lock as a 'spring one' the Daily News for 10 November which says the same thing and a statement by Abberline in one of the papers( I can't for the life of me track down which) in which he states the lock was a 'spring one'
Where the confusion arises, I believe, is the fact that the 'spring bolt' is part of a 'spring lock' and not a separate piece of door furniture. The bolt is the piece of metal that protrudes from the lock and engages with a recess in the door frame, either morticed in or a separate metal cup ( as in modern Yale locks)
I believe that some readers may have been under the impression that when I spoke of a 'spring bolt' I was referring to a spring loaded type of common Tower bolt ( which is a rod of metal that slides in an open metal tube. The metal rod is usually bent at right angles to prevent it coming right through.
I do have a catalogue picture of the type of lock which was, I believe, fitted to the door, but have no idea how to get it on the web. If anyone would like to send me (by email) a fools guide of how I can do this I would be more than happy to oblige!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 03:34 pm | | Hi Bob,
I've just driven myself demented with the search engine - (it produces an astounding number of pages for the combination 'spring+lock') - because I'm sure I remember discussion of this kind happening earlier, and somebody posting a page from a Victorian catalogue which showed the type of lock commonly in use. Or was it a window catch? Or have I been suffering from mundane, completely realistic, and ultimately completely misleading dreams about what I'm doing again?
Does anyone else share a Jungian arhetypal memory of this lock illustration?
Martin F |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 05 May 2001 - 07:17 pm | | G'day,
While on the subject of that lock, I'll just point out Frederick George Abberline's inquest statement contained in the latest book: 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion':
'I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time & they opened the door by reaching through the window, a pipe was there & used by him.'
I posted this now, because I don't recall ever reading the last part of that sentence about a pipe! I also don't know if or how this changes everyones thoughts about the broken window, the lock, the distance one had to reach etc.
It sounds to me as though Joe had to stand on or hang on to a drain pipe, while reaching through. What do we all think?
These statements were taken from the London Metropolitan Archives and are in Abberline's handwriting!
This book is amazing, because it has the exact inquest statements in it! Deleting or failing to note one or two words, changes the whole sentence in some cases!
Leanne! |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 06:15 am | | Er... Leanne... won't this be the clay (tobacco) pipe that Anderson complained was found at the crime scene, but carelessly thrown away instead of being retained as possible evidence?
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 07:49 am | | G'day Martin,
errr...yeah! That could be what he means here.
He should have been clearer on that point though, because these notes were in his handwriting!
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 08:23 am | | G'day Martin,
You're absolutely right on that point. I just re-read the Telegraph version of the inquest report!
Leanne! |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 08:39 am | | Instant acknowledgement and correction? You are an example to us all, Leanne! The Maybrick boards might be swept clean if we could all imitate you.
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 11:41 am | | Hi Martin and Leanne:
Leanne quoted Abberline's inquest testimony as reported in the The Times of 13 November 1888 as reprinted in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion (p. 376):
'I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time & that they opened the door by reaching through the window, a pipe was there & used by him.'
Does this sound as if Joe and maybe MJK used a pipe as an extension of the arm (or by extension ha ha some other handy implement) to enable them to reach the catch? Against this idea is that Abberline has just been talking about items found in the room, e.g., items identified among the ashes in the grate, so is he just saying Joe's pipe was in the room and not (as it could be taken to mean) that Joe's pipe was used to open the door? Just some more thoughts on a mystifying aspect of a forever mystifying case!
All the best
Chris |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 03:08 pm | | | My interpretation of this, for what it's worth, is that Barnett probably gripped the "drain" pipe (downspout) with his right hand for support while reaching through the broken glass to pull the spring back with his left. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 04:22 pm | | Hi Chris,
According to Leanne's postings she was also quoting from Archive notes in Abberline's hand and the Telegraph reports. I still think it far more likely that the one sentence has lumped together Barnett's explanation of how they got in after losing the key with his admission that the clay pipe found in the room was his. But obviously I can't say for certain not having looked at the detailed originals, and admitting there is ambiguity in the Source Book section quoted.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 04:42 pm | | Hi, all:
It would appear that on this point The Times report quoted in The Ultimate is confused, because the 13 November 1888 Daily Telegraph gives a report of Abberline's testimony that appears to make it clear that the broken window and the clay pipe were two separate thoughts of Abberline's, and also that he was not referring to the outside drainpipe:
"Barnett informs me that [the key] has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy. There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it."
Chris George |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 06:54 pm | | I'm glad mine appeared first of our crossed posts, Chris, or it would look as if I was being clever after having been given the answer!
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 06 May 2001 - 08:24 pm | | Hi Martin and Leanne:
This does though point up the value of checking as many newspaper sources as possible where the actual inquest testimony is missing. Clearly, it depends on the ear of the reporter to get as accurately as possible what was said. As we know, there is the controversy over whether Joe identified Mary Jane by her "ear" or her "hair" as another example where there can be room for differences of interpretation. In other instances, as here with Abberline's testimony, what is recorded is markedly different: clearly the Daily Telegraph reporter heard a lot more than the man from The Times!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 05:35 am | | G'day Chris,
These notes in Abberline's own hand, also say the Joseph Barnett stated: "I identify her by the ear and the eyes. I am positive it is the same woman."
I remember reading elsewhere in this book that several people identified her as well. This book says: 'Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She affirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday....", so I'd say that enough people knew who they were looking at through the window, and police just needed an official identification from her 'husband'.
Leanne! |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 07 May 2001 - 05:59 am | | Dear Martin,
Source of ignition missing too...it appears. The ubiqitous 'flint-box'(tinder-box)? Vestas were available but got damp...and anyway one ususually sold them to the better off classes (The Little Match Girl).
Strike a light, anyone. :-) |
|
|
|
|
