|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 February 11, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion:
The missing key:
Archive through February 11, 2001
Author: Tracy A Williams
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 10:44 am |        | Hello Casebook posters
I had read the 1987 copy of Martin Fido’s book in 1987, I don't know if it has been updated in recent years, but it is mentioned in the book that Mary Kelly was in the recent habit of putting her hand through a broken window to bolt the door from the inside, because she had lost her key. We all know in the Maybrick diary that the writer mentions the key in his little ditty, when referring to the murder of Mary Kelly. Although I have not read many Ripper books, the only other references I have to the broken window and the bolt being drawn through the broken window is a fictional account by horror writer Richard Laymen and Martin’s book, and a oblique reference in Gordon Honeycombe’s brief account of the Ripper murders, that the police entered the dwelling through the window. (Which I now gather to be possibly untrue because John McCarthy took an axe to the door to force entry Sugden, page 313)) There has also been mention I read in some postings and in Sugden’s book that the door had a spring lock, which could be operated, from the broken window. Joe Barnett told Abberline that the key had been missing for some time. I have a question (although the only purpose is to salve my own curiosity), because I can understand the door being dramatically smashed open if it was bolted, but surely a spring lock would give easily with a kick or shoulder charge. Did the door have both spring lock and bolt? Curiously the key and the bolt puzzled the protagonist in Laymen’s fictional account:
It was a puzzle, what came next.
He locked the door. He didn’t reach through the window and slide the bolt; he used a key from the outside. I heard that key scrape its way into the lock, and heard the clack, and then the key pulling out.
I wondered if he’d found the key on Mary. But if she’d had it, how come she didn’t use it instead of reaching through the window for the bolt?
I wondered why I was even bothering my head with such a mystery
(Laymon, Richard ‘Savage’ pages: 36,37, 1993, Headline Book Publishing)
I too am wondering why I bother my head about such a mystery, but I do find it ironic, that the key having been used to lock the door was used in the fictional diary and a fictional horror story.
By the way for posters to the Casebook, the Laymen book, is by no means an accurate account of the murders, it deals only with the Kelly murder, and the Rippers subsequent murderous deeds after Kelly’s murder, which take place in America. Although Laymen’s book is purely for entertainment, he has obviously drawn on myth and the sensational (not academic) history of the Rippers murderous techniques to furnish his novel. No source is mentioned, so I gather Laymen drew his information on what is generally known regarding the Ripper murders.
I have read the ‘Maybrick’ diary, and am currently working my way through Shirley Harrison’s book (with updated narrative). I have tried to read Feldman’s book but find the constant zig- zagging irritating, although despite the controversy surrounding the ‘Maybrick diary’ I find Harrison’s book deeply interesting. The psychological profile of the ‘Diary writer’ by Professor David Carter I cannot really accept, because I find the Diarists attempt at describing the murders inadequate, and his passion if that is the right word exaggerated, with the constant ha, ha’s, and the silly rhymes. There is an odd juxtaposition of his feelings regarding his whoring wife, and his pleasure at murdering whores, which doesn’t add up. I saw a film recently ‘Wishmaster’ in which Jack the Ripper comes alive in all his comic and legendary glory complete with black bag, and large knife and maniacal grin, a comically sinister characature of what the real Ripper must have looked like. The writer of the diary when writing about the murders conjures up images of the comic Jack, animated in the film.
I believe that the person who had murdered the Whitechapel prostitutes would have had a more complex emotional barrage against what he had done, not write up a brief subjective description of the murders accompanied by rhymes. Then again the writer just might have been Maybrick, and perhaps because of his Whoring wife, identified with the Ripper, and took on his identity in fantasy only. He does fantasize about slashing up his wife, although he never does. This theory has probably already been debated and dismissed, in other postings. I am new to the casebook, and although I have always had a keen interest in Jack the Ripper, I have not researched the case.
I live in Manchester/UK and some of you are right when you say the background of the Ripper case is not widely known, in fact recently I asked a friend if they knew who Jack the Ripper was, and the person replied which one! Nobody I asked can name a single Ripper victim, and most say he was a doctor, because the films say so!
Sorry if this is not in the right place, but I new to the CASEBOOK, and not familiar with the Postings, and I cannot find any subjects about the KEY
Tracy |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 11:03 am | | Hi Tracy,
There has been one update (in 1988), and a special introduction written for the Barnes & Noble edition a few years later. Otherwise, I fear, it's all old hat and mu ch out of date by now. I learned much more about the lock and key when working with Paul and Keith on the A to Z.
The springlock is mentioned in one newspaper report, and made sense of what was previously puzzling - mention of both a lost key (one assumed for a mortice lock) and unlocking the door by reaching through the window (which seemed to imply drawing a bolt - but how was it closed when the occupants went out?) I guess in thinking the lock would give to a shoulder charge (or, more reliably, a flat-of-foot kick directly over the lock)you are thinking of a Yale type lock. I suspect that the Victorian prototypes were much more cumbersome.
A final oddity you might care to ponder. Simon Wood, an expert in design and graphics technology, computer-realized the dimensions of the room from the early photographs, and concluded that Barnett and Kelly must have had arms like gorillas' to reach from the window to the lock!
Welcome to the search for the facts among the fantasies.
Martin Fido |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 01:26 pm | | Hi Tracy:
Welcome to the boards. I hope you spend a lot of time here as we all do. It becomes addictive after a while 
You are exactly right that in terms of the Maybrick Diary, whomever composed the text has brought in every Ripper cliché that there is. Although Ripperologists are fairly certain in thinking that the original Dear Boss letters were written by a journalist, Maybrick lays claim to them. In addition, it is implied that he also wrote the Lusk letter in that he tells us he ate the kidney just as the Lusk writer claims. The Dear Boss series and the Lusk letter we can say with some certain certainty were written by different authors. Not only is the handwriting highly dissimilar but the tone is radically different.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 02:24 pm | | | Thank you both for your comments. Although I had an early interest in Jack the Ripper, my appetitie has been awakened with the revelations of the Maybrick diary, and the facinating insights and debates on the Casebook. Therefore I look forward to being a regular on the casebook! Also Martin thanks for clearing up my curiosity regarding the Key and the Bolt. And yes I was thinking of Yale locks! |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 04:16 pm | | Tracy,
You're in!
caught!
or otherwise converted!
Welcome! ... & don't listen to Diary doubters!
cheers John |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 04:24 pm | | Thanks John
I have posted this elsewhere, but coincidence or not, re my new found interest in JTR, I have just looked at my TV listings and there is a Documentry on tonight re- the Maybrick Diary on Channel five. My lucky day!
Tracy |
Author: R Court
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 08:29 am | | Hi Tracy,
Just a quick note about the lock on Mary's door. Such spring locks (not 'Yale'-Locks, I understand they were not available at that time) were widely spread at that time (and earlier). As I lived in an old early Victorian house in London South, the kitchen back door had such a lock and although no date was seen on it (I admit to not having looked for one) the construction and wear indicated an original part, which was possibly substantiated by a number of other houses in the row having the same lock type on the same door positions.
About Mary and Joe and gorilla-arms, I tried to build a cardboard model of the room on just this point some years ago. The result was inconclusive for a number of reasons, but it does seem apparent that the window would have had to be opened to get a shoulder in, if the measurements I had were correct. To have beeen able to simply get an arm through the hole in the glass to reach the doorlock does seem improbable, even allowing for the fact that the lock was on the window-side of the door.
Welcome, by the way, to the JTR -Board. Many very interesting discussions and murderous, bloody fights await you.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 08:52 am | | Hi Bob
Thankyou for your welcome!
Which brings us back to Martin's point about how Mary gained entry to the house, if the spring lock, engaged once she left the premises. Unless she put the lock on the latch when she went out (Or am I still thinking of Yale) trusting the old adage, 'In the old days, you could leave your door open, and no one would burgle you'!
Changing the subject, do any posters know of an area on the casebook where the Feldman, Howells documentary is discussed? If not, does any poster know when the documentary was first shown, and when was it made?
Thanks!
Tracy |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 09:25 am | | Not really my point, Tracy; I meant that if the lock was within reach of the window, Mary or Joe could reach an arm in and pull it back, presumably fastening it open with whatever primitive variant of a skitch existed - (perhaps Bob could enlighten us?) - before going round to the door and entering. The spring would ensure that the door locked (with the skitch released) as they slammed it when they went out, whereas a mortice lock couldn't have been fastened without the key, and it seems a curious palaver to go round and draw a bolt through the window when anyone watching would know at once that he could gain access the same way. If there was no propotype skitch, then one assumes access could only be gained if two people came to the room together: one to release the lock and the other to open the door. (Gosh, what a lot of detailed speculation on a point so tiny I can't imagine anyone resting an argument or theory on it!)
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: R Court
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 10:54 am | | Hi Tracy, Hi Martin,
Would it not have been sufficient for the person concerned to unlock and open the door from the window, I assume it would not close on its own, then walk round and enter? The lock I am thinking of is the type that, similar to the Yale, needs a bit of force to operate the catch when closing. Once the door is open, it should remain so unless drawn intentionally closed (speed or force). The lock I had in London was of this type. The key, incidently, was a normal mortise key in appearance, no cylinder type.
I suspect that Mary would not have had any real concern about locking the place up, or people watching her open the lock. What did she have worth stealing? Probably the lock was there anyway, so it was used, but contemporary documents tell us that most doors had no lock, or at least no key. After the double event, we are told, many house-owners fitted locks and issued keys to rightful occupants.
It is indeed a small point, Martin, but like the horseshoe nail it can have repercussions, as example the (AAARGHHHH!!!!!) diary question about Maybrick the Ripper taking the key with him etc. etc. or far more, did Jack enter in this fashion as Mary slept? He COULD have, lurking in the dark corners of Millers Court until e.g. CGH/Blotchey face/Well-to-do had buzzed off, then entering quietly to disintegrate the unfortunant girl.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 11:14 am | | Hi Tracy,
I can't find a specific area on the Casebook where the documentary has been discussed in any great detail. But I can tell you that it was made in 1993 and first shown around mid November that year. (I must admit I started watching it again last night, although I have it on video, and fell sound asleep. Must have been the soothing voices of Beggy and Martin Fido. :-))
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 03:15 pm | | Thanks for that info Caroline
It looked to me that Martin looked like he was in an asylum taken over by the lunatics. 'The James shall not be blamed...' was a classic though! :-)I don't want to appear rude by my comment above, but some of the evidence was a little far fetched, and I really could not understand, why Michael Winner said that the search was on for further evidence of James Maybrick handwriting, and then the watch was introduced, and no reference was made regarding the handwriting on the watch matching the Will, or the journal.
I have to admit however that one point does intrigue me re-the journal, and it has probably been discussed, but the supposed initials FM on the wall in Mary Kelly's room have me dumbfounded. I try and look at this evidence logically, and my logic screams at me that the perpetrator of the diary, may have noticed the marks whilst researching Ripper details, and seen this as a real stroke of luck, but do things like that really happen? I have a larger image of the Kelly photograph, than the one in Harrison’s book, and I admit it looks very much like the spurt of blood made from the carotid artery. But for the Journal writer to see this FM, and hint with the rhyme ‘an initial here, an initial there, would tell of the whoring mother’. I find this a remarkable discovery for the writer, especially when the initials FM can be identified on the wall. Then again I suppose if one looked hard enough the entire alphabet could be discovered on the wall, but I do find the M distinctive if not the F.
Tracy |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 04:51 pm | | Hello Martin
Yes Martin I realised I had made a mistake and re-checked your previous posting, but I sort of dismissed the idea of opening the door from the window, because of the ‘arms like a gorilla’ theory, and was thinking how Mary might have re-entered the dwelling, assuming the door was locked behind her when she went out. It didn’t enter my head to imagine how she would get out, because again I am thinking in terms of a type of Yale lock. The mortise lock sounds like a logical explanation, if the key had been lost, and Mary would probably have had the lock forced to enter, and perhaps the lock remained broken, and she managed by simply pulling the door shut. Of course this is just supposition, but if the key was lost, and it wasn’t really possible to open the door through the window, then I assume she left the door open. The door was locked however when the police took an axe to it, so therefore it could not have been a mortise lock, unless the mortise had been locked with a key. I feel I am going around in circles with this one Martin, but thank you for your comments and help! |
Author: stephen stanley
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 05:28 pm | | Not the right board,but as we've mentioned the documentary, I was watching it with my daughter who (with no prior knowledge of the topic) produced the comment that it did'nt matter if it was real or a fake...'because only a really sick bastard would want to lay claim to the murders'..maybe we are used to the Kelly photos' Etc., but she found them so shocking 'worse than any horror film' ...that whoever wrote the Diary was (if not the Ripper),certainly capable of Murder....Interesting thought that it was written to gratify a sick fantasy.
Steve S |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 09:54 pm | | | Aha! We have now caught Joe Barnett in a lie -- something which rearouses my interest in him. (Unless you wish to believe that both he and Mary were favored with simian appendages.) If the computer reconstruction is true, then Joe's got to be lying. I'm wondering what the purpose of such a lie might be? What would he be trying to cover up? Why wouldn't the police on the scene have noticed that the reach was too long? Of course maybe he and Mary used a handy coathanger or something and that was just glossed over? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 05:38 am | | Hi Tracy,
'Then again I suppose if one looked hard enough the entire alphabet could be discovered on the wall...'
I think you probably answered your own question there. :-)
The fact remains, however, that the diary author was laying claim to leaving 'an initial here and an initial there' (sounds like the watch!), unconcerned that close scrutiny could throw out the idea that FM was ever daubed on the wall.
Love,
Caz |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 07:19 am | | | Mary Kelly welcomed her killer in, the same man she was seen with by Hutchinson, he returned after the first meeting armed with a co-conspiritor, there's a great deal of evidence in the picture to indicate this. The trail begins with the sleeve sitting almost at right angles to her body and just in front of her abdomen. If her left arm was straightened would you would notice that the lacerations on the upper and forearm are all at the same angle, this is because he inflicted them whilst her arm was still in the sleeve of the gown and almost straight. As the killers moved her up the bed the arm came out of the sleeve which rode up in this fashion. Under the right circumstances you can actually see that some of the lacerations on the upper arm have moved under the top of the lace, this is because they were overlaid over as the killers pulled Mary up the bed. It fell down the side marking the sheet the killer picked her arm up and placed it on hrt abdomen. Forget the initials Caz, I can find the words Popey, Maybrick is totally innocent. The killers made many mistakes, but mistakes are very powerful; if you know how to employ them correctly. There are several other indications get to work on this picture yourself there's much to be learned. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 07:31 am | | Hi, Tracy,
It must be all that time in the asylum trying to reason with the lunatics which is making me whirl your rational head. To close and lock her door with a spring lock on going out, MJK had only to slam it firmly (as with a Yale lock today). She couldn't, of course, have locked an ordinary mortice without a key. The lock can't have been broken on 9 November, or McCarthy wdnt have had to take an axe to his property.
Martin F |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 08:18 am | | Hi Caroline
\ / Eyebrows raised
but still what a lucky find that FM, the journal writer able to make THREE coincidences from a splatter of carotid blood! :->
Tracy |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 08:24 am | | I was going to open a new subject for this but, this subject heading has turned into a mishmash of subjects re Maybrick and JTR so I will put it here.
I am quite interested in the Psychopathological profiling by Doctor David Foreshaw. Not because I place any confidence in Doctor Forshaw's psycho analysis of the contents of the diary, but how the Forensic Psychiatric profiling of the writer of the diary, convinced Shirley Harrison of the authenticity of the diary. Doctor Foreshaw writes: ‘if such an examination proves indecisive and falls back on content, then I would argue in that case, on the balance of probabilities from a psychiatric perspective, it is authentic. (TDOJTR, page 19).
Shirley Harrison writes in response: ‘From the beginning, it was my instinctive response to the psychopathology of the diary convinced me it was genuine’. (TDOJTR, page 19).
Historians in recent years have too advanced into the realms of psychology when profiling for example biographical accounts of famous, historical individuals. However gone are the days when ‘inspired conjecture’ was the apparatus of biographical examination, and literary intuition based on myth and fiction coloured the lives of biographically barren historical individuals. (If I may paraphrase Arthur Marwick a bit) Historians draw on generations of historical material when writing biographies and psychopathological profiles say of Hitler for example. Little if nothing is known of JTR, so how can we assume a psychological profile at all? I have read countless fictional horror books, which have psychopaths so violent and terrible that they make JTR look like a choirboy in comparison. How do these fictional writers gain an insight into the mind of the psychopath? They obviously study psychopathological profiling, but they can write with such vivid and credible fiction. This type of fiction doesn’t seek to imitate murder, what it does is mirror the type of murderer/psychopath ever present in society throughout history. This is exactly the case with the journal, the writer has mirrored the atrocities committed by JTR, and conveniently if not somewhat fortuitously embedded them in the fragmented history of James Maybrick.
I would say that the writer of the journal has a fundamental collection of biographical data on James Maybrick, certainly not enough to structure Maybrick’s personality. We can profile JTR, only by his murderous activities, nothing at all is available from which we can build a biography. Therefore the pathological profile of JTR is incomplete, from what we know of the murders yes he does seem compulsively motivated but is Maybrick? If we take the fundamentals of Maybrick’s biography and assign them to the profile of JTR, like oil and water they don’t mix. Maybrick obviously in the throws of mid-life crisis, discovers his wife having an affair, so on his business trips to London, he vents his frustration by casually slashing up five prostitutes. His murderous proclivities, never emerging before 1888, or for the sixth months after the last murder. From what we know of Maybrick I think evidence of a compulsive personality would have emerged sooner, not for a brief spell in 1888. You could argue that his adulterous wife triggered his brief leap into madness, but surely a compulsive personality is just that, not mild mannered business man, then suddenly psychopathic murderer. I am no expert but murderers often have a background of sociopathic behaviour throughout their lives, no matter how mild. However the writer can furnish the diary with sub plots of biographical information to colour his character, and merit his murderous behaviour with at least some credibility. He is an arsenic addict, his dependency makes him emotionally defective in some way; he suffers from a severe case of sibling rivalry, which result in a bad case of wannabe Roger Gough. (No offence to Roger his poetry is not in question); he visits London on business and is there at the times of the murders (probably); his wife is having an affair quid pro quo he is Jack the Ripper.
Well on the balance of probabilities with no illusion to literary intuition, but with a little inspired conjecture and as a keen reader of horror and from an historian perspective I would argue thus: the writer has obviously some good background knowledge of Maybrick, he is extremely familiar from a historiography perspective on the Ripper murders. When writing up the horror aspect of the diary to lend the Ripper at least some substance I think the writing lacks something; I think it is credibility. Yes the writing shows the diarist to be egocentric and full of self- pity but it is totally unconvincing. To switch from being maudling to mad cackling psychopath after a visit to London banally describing what he did to the victims is certainly defective, not only as the real thing but also as a fiction. Therefore it is a fake! I think Chris T George said it all when referring to the JTR in the journal, ‘whomever composed the text has brought in every Ripper cliché that there is’.
Right ok lets have your thoughts
Tracy |
Author: R Court
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 10:15 am | | Hi all,
Tracy, I'll have to go off-line to read and do your last post justice, so I'll not refer to it for the moment. I wanted to defend Joe Barnett concerning the key story. As far as can be reliably ascertained, the 13 Millers Court lock was a spring-type, which needs no key to close, and no key to open from the inside. It has to be opened from the outside with a key, except that some more modern types allowed, by the operation of a small lever on the inside, the lock to be put 'on the catch', that is to say, locked in one or the other position.
When the key got lost ist evidently not to be cleared any more, but I exonerate Joe Barnett because of one simple fact; Barnett was an obvious suspect, he knew and had lived with her, his pipe was found at the scene of the crime, they had had a fight, she had forced him out etc. etc. All this was known to Abberline so we do not need to speculate if Abberline took Barnett through the mangel, he did. Probably also aided by a number of other qualified police officers, desperately trying to find Jack.
Abberline was no fool. If there had been even the slightest indication of lies on Joe's part, it would have been noticed and followed up. If that had been the case, it would have been recorded. Further, if Joe was guilty, then why lie about an irrelevant key and bring himself thus to the unwelcome attention of the police? Naturaly, I can't prove he was innocent, but if he was guilty the man was either an absolute, or a completely mad, genius.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 11:04 am | | Dear E. Carter,
'Forget the initials Caz, I can find the words Popey, Maybrick is totally innocent.'
The very point I was making to Tracy - or so I thought. :-)
Hi Tracy,
I tend to agree with you.
Hi Bob,
I absolutely agree with you.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 11:21 am | | Hi Bob,
and was this modern type lock you mention that could be placed on the catch around in 1888? or am I simply going round in circles? I have my suspicions re: Barnett because he had the opportunity and the motive.
Tracy |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 11:36 am | | Hi E Carter
you have lost me there! I cannot really determine anything from the position of the body, I don't really have an eye for looking at that kind of detail I studied it once for ages though because I couldn't make out if the left leg was there :->
Tracy |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:55 am | | G'day All,
I don't think anyone would have put a modern type lock with all the latest features, on the door of what was once a shed, on the lowest thoroughfare in the East End, (Dorset Street). Especially when the tenant was behind in her rent!
If Abberline and his 'qualified officers' were so good, how come the Ripper was never caught?
Leanne! |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 06:43 am | | | Tracy and Caz. Let's start with something simple careful examination of Marys mouth begin to indicate one of the reasons her right shaft of femur snapped so easily as the killer lifted her legs. Stride also had this problem, it's doubtful her femur would have snapped in this day and age. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 10:17 am | | In response to Leanne's point above I might add, seeing as how McCarthy forced the door to gain entrance, two possibilities arise.
Either the door actually was locked, and not on the catch, as has been supposed, or McCarthy was not aware of any catch on his door.
And if McCarthy was not aware of one then this means the catch was installed by a tennent (Barnett?), therefore it was a separate fitting not built into the lock mechanism.
McCarthy new about the broken window that morning so when they tried the door, to see if it would open, it may have held solid, not rattle as a door sometimes will if only held by a catch.
I just think there's a possible progression of logic here, because the door was forced it means McCarthy, and others present, either knew it to be locked, by it's solid resistance to pressure, or were not aware of the catch.
There may be other possibilites too, but I see these are the prime two to consider and speculations should proceed from either of these two possibilites.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 11:36 am | | I cannot imagine any lock that would need to be forced so violently as to use an axe to gain entrance. McCarthy wouldn't have had an axe with him, so whomever decided to force the door because it was held solid must have suggsted an axe was needed or some other heavy object to gain entry. A mortise lock would have been difficult but a mortise needs a key. As we have already summised. What type of lock might the tenant or landlord have fitted?
However Bob Hinton's book on the Ripper says that Joe Barnett again said that the key was lost but that: '...it could be opened by reaching through the broken window and pulling back the 'springbolt''. Now I quite like this theory because it makes sense. A springbolt has more appeal than a springlock, we still have the 'gorrila like arms' theory to contend with. I really can't imagine how Barnett could be mis quoted, or that he would say a springbolt was used, if one wasn't.
Tracy |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 12:11 pm | | re the lock
I can't imagine why Mr Hinton put the above in the text becuase he devotes time to The Missing Key theory in his book, and mentions that Yale locks were around at the time, but were very expensive (18 shillings)it is unlikely that McCarthy would have spent that much money on a lock, but that a cheaper type of lock a Night Latch was put on the door,(a bargain at only three shillings!) something similar to a Kenrick lock, it had no key hole on the inside, the inside however had two knobs, and drawing back one of the knobs which was milled at the edges draws back the bolt. Mary kelly kept the lock on the latch when she went out, and locked the door when she was in. Mary Kelly let Jack in, and when he left the catch would have sprung back into place. Hinton reconstructed the room, and his conclusion is that it would have been extremely diificult to reach the lock, especially Mary Kelly, who was only 5, 4. A detective at the time when referring to the mass of onlookers, who had gathered in the area had come through other peoples houses and backyards and '...for it is a fact that the people here do not lock their doors'. Apparently. Hinton says it was the photographer who first entered the room by removing the entire window frame. Because there is no evidence of a lock on the outside, but the door was locked they applied Ocham's razor to the problem and removed the window, photographer entered through the window and left through the window. Barnet was not present at the scene(apparently) so how could he tell them of his window method of entry?
Well it satifies me, and therefore I shall leave the locked door theories locked, and turn my attention to other Ripper mysteries on the board, but thanks, for all your speculating, theories and comments.
Tracy |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 02:53 pm | | Mr. Carter,
Respectfully sir, is English your first language?
It takes a number of readings to make any sense of your Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 06:43 am message. You use punctuation sparingly, which makes it difficult to determine how the sentence should be read, e.g. "Let's start with something simple careful"….etc, shouldn't there be a semi colon, or a comma between simple and careful?
Setting your punctuation allergies aside for a moment, you make some statements that seem to contain purposeful redundancies e.g."the right shaft of femur", the femur is a shaft with knobs at each end, is there a clue hidden in your pronouncement that we should be looking for?
You also make statements without offering any supporting evidence, or laying out the train of logic that would make your claims obvious, e.g. a medical examination of Ms. Kelly's mouth would have revealed a bone disease; a condition that also afflicted Ms. Stride. In addition, you claim that Ms. Kelly's right femur (thigh bone) was broken when her "killers" moved her.
This single proposal contains, "a plethora" (The Three Amigos,1986) of new information. Upon what evidence do you base these assertions?
If you have been reading the Casebook at all over the last month or so you are aware that there was also another enigmatic individual who believed he possessed a superior intellect, which allowed him to speak to the readership in parables. The site moderators felt it necessary to ban this guy from participating because of his bad manners, bad brains, and bad Karma. Mr. Carter, I sincerely hope that you're not cut from the same cloth.
My suggestions:
If you have a point to make, please make it without the sanctimonious enigma wrapped in a conundrum approach that seems to be the latest fad among the self-styled guest teacher types that surf in here these days.
The Whitechapel murders are an unsolved mystery that attracts people who appreciate such things; this doesn't mean that we're a collection of intellectual misfits, so please don't talk down to us as if we are.
Please don't assume that we will naturally benefit by solving your riddles; what is interesting at first, soon becomes tiresome when the solutions are not forthcoming or the riddles themselves are indecipherable.
This web site has an abundance of world-renowned authorities on this subject; they share their knowledge, and offer advice on a regular basis without your air of pedagogy.
The regular contributors to this web site have been going at it for three plus years. They are incredibly well versed in every aspect of the Whitechapel murders, so if you believe your insight is of some value, please share it with us straight out, we'd all love to hear it; otherwise, I hope you can appreciate that the last thing we need here is another patronizing surfer.
Best regards |
Author: Lisa Muir
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 04:16 pm | | Tracy - I imagine Mr. Carter suggests examining Mary Kelly's mouth to make the point that she had broken or missing teeth; an indication of calcium
deficiency? which would, perhaps, mean that she also had calcium-starved/brittle bones. That's the best I could make of it. |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:24 pm | | | Rickets Lisa, look it up, it's also probably why Mary Kelly refused to wear a hat, look up the word bossing. |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:45 pm | | Hello Ms. Muir,
You can address me directly if you would like; I promise I won't bite you.…..much. J
The point that I was trying to make for Mr. Carter is this; if he doesn't come out and tell us what he's driving at, we are left to supply our own speculation, just as you did.
Now your speculation is logical, and makes a ton of sense, but the problem remains, it is your speculation, and not Mr. Carter's. Shouldn't he be responsible for his thoughts, and you for yours? Isn't this the same type of taking concepts for granted that has contributed to the confusion of the case from it's beginning? Anderson's supposition, Swanson's marginalia, Aberline's cryptic musings, have all added to the speculative nature of the Whitechapel murders because they just didn't say exactly what they meant.
Don't you think we should make every effort to be as clear, and articulate as possible when making statements?
Taking responsibility for our thoughts, by expressing them plainly, and labeling speculation as such, would go a long way to clarifying points of discussion, and moving the body of investigation further along.
I'm sure it is obvious to all the regulars that I have too much time on my hands today.
Ta ta |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 06:10 pm | | G'day Tracy,
This should be moved to the apropriate board but first:
Does Bob Hinton's book say that does it? Every other book I've read about JtR makes no mention of the word "springlock". What are Bob's sources for this?
Inspector Abberline said at Kelly's inquest: "Barnett informs me that 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."
The Star newspaper on the 10 November, told how Barnett looked through the opened window, to view and identify her body that morning. I'd say that after this, he was taken to the station for questioning and told Inspector Abberline about the
method of opening the door.
LEANNE! |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 06:53 pm | | | Lisa, rickets can causes bossing of the mouth, if you look at the protrusion of her mouth, rickets may well be the cause. It often causes asymmetrical growth of the skull, therefore many women who have suffered the disease as a child, find the right size hat sits too high on the head and one that sits properly looks too big. Fussy women just won't wear one. If this is rickets, Mary probably lived in a town where fish,liver and milk were scarce. Other indications include bowing of the tibula and fibula (lower legs), thickening of the knees and arms. Bye, very nice knowing you. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 12:59 am | | | Mr. Carter, please don't go. Nobody else noticed what you noticed about Mary. |
Author: Tracy A Williams
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 07:20 am | | Hi Leanne
You make a good point, because I was reading in the Hinton book, about the sort of time line regarding Kelly's last evening alive and Bob Hinton says that Barnet said he told the police that they had to put a hand through the window to draw back the spring bolt. Hinton makes an issue out of the Mysterious key theory because he uses it to pick holes in the theory of another Ripper writer (Bruce Paley). Apparently it is a theory based on a reconstruction of the room after some discussion with the Federation of Master Builders, a very complex examination of the position of the broken window pane in relation to the door. Thomas Bowyers testimony at the trial, and his description of the Broken window pane which states:
’…I went around the corner and there was a broken window in the farthest window’.
This caused some confusion so Inspector Ledger interrupts Bowyers testimony and produces his plans, Bowyer consults the plans and continues: ‘…There are two windows in the court. Two of the panes in the window nearest the passage were broken and finding the door locked, I looked through the lower broken pane…’
Hinton says:
“Therefore as Bowyers testimony confirms the broken pane is either upper or lower left, and Phillips speaks of the lower broken pane it is obvious that the broken panes in the window must be lower left and upper right. The other pane reffered to by Philips cannot be uuper left because that is too far from the door to make it possible to slip the bolt reaching through.. Th broken pane approx 5’ to 5’8 from the ground. Kelly’s height at approx 5’3”, the intervening brickwork between the broken pane and the nearest point of the door being at least 18”, allowing for standard sized brick and mortar of ¼” thickness, it can now be seen that putting your arm through a window, surrounded by sharp broken glass, reaching right over and slipping the catch is not a simple matter as everyone has assumed it to be. It was going to be quite a struggle for J Barnett height at 5’ 7”, but for someone of Mary’s height it was all but impossible. I constructed a mock up of the corner of Mary Kelly’s room, and I could not just put my hands through the broken pane and slip the latch. If anyone wishes to duplicate this feat, please do as I did using tracing paper to simulate glass – it’s much safer…(Hinton, Bob ‘From Hell…The Jack the Ripper Mystery, Old Bakehouse Publications, June 1998, pages 202-208). Hinton also has seen catalogues from the era, that show the cheap NightLatch type bolt lock thingymijig, at three shillings, saying they were quite common! In appereance look like a normal warded lock, but clue to being a springbolt type is there is no keyhole on the inside.
There is a lot more intersting stuff and in the chapter on the mYsterious key saga
Tracy |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 10:47 am | | Bob's 'lower left & upper right' is an accurate interpretation of the available statements. We have been over this in some depth twice that I know of, in past years, and I still maintain that the upper right broken pain is a good indication that the catch/latch, if it existed, was a separately mounted fitting installed about chest height on the back of the door. Any lower (ie, as part of the handle) and you would not be able to reach it through the hole in the glass, it was too high.
Of course, any argument is only as strong as the accuracy of the existing testimony.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Lisa Muir
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 08:12 pm | | Dear Joseph, I agree entirely. I read these boards to learn; to gain insight. When I want to solve riddles I pick-up the London Times crossword
puzzle.
Mr. Carter, Davidoz and the like seem to derive great satisfaction by talking in tongues. My guess is that if they spoke English they wouldn't be more than ordinary.
Lisa
******************
Mr.Carter, If you're still there. I learned about rickets in elementary school. And, if I recall correctly, it is a disease caused by calcium deficiency, so was I really so far off? |
Author: Joseph
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 10:16 pm | | Hello Ms. Muir,
I agree with you; when I need a mental challenge, I'll read Aristotle.
Where we part company is our evaluations of Davidoz, and Mr. Carter. To some extent, they share an originality of thought, and a forensic ability to see clues, where others, myself included, see nothing or confusion. The differences between them are:
Davidoz is neurotic, and Mr. Carter isn't.
Davidoz didn't respond to empathy, or enmity.
Mr. Carter is sensitive, and responded to criticism.
Davidoz is pseudo intellectual.
Mr. Carter is intelligent.
Did I mention Davidoz, is neurotic.
Mr. Carter will make contributions to this forum.
Davidoz will make ca ca in his pants.
Mr. Carter is a normal guy, who periodically has trouble with sentence construction and spelling, pretty much like everyone else.
I think we can expect Mr. Carter to raise the bar.
Have a good week Ms. Muir
Best regards |
|
|
|
|
