|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 96
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 9:05 pm: | 
|
Leanne,
"Do you think that Elizabeth Prater's floor was so thin that she could hear Mary Kelly breathing?..."
"Then there's the clothes. Did they just walk silently over to the fireplace and throw themselves in?"
Surely you have no belittling motive in asking such bafflingly crass rhetorical questions? Questions which have no bearing whatsoever upon any points I have ever raised.
"The killer was definately there in Kelly's room at some stage yet Elizabeth Prater didn't hear him. Should we therefore assume that he was motionless, then floated out of the holey window when he was finished because Prater didn't hear him?"
Don't be preposterous. You ask what we should "assume". We should assume that the process of butchering Mary Kelly does not require her killer to stomp around the room, elephantine fashion. The murder took place on the bed in which she slept. How could Elizabeth Prater have heard anything? How noisy an operator do you imagine Jack the Riper to have been?
It is ***overwhelmingly likely*** that Mary Kelly's murder did not generate enough noise to be detected by Elizabeth Prater in the room above, whereas any excessive movement (i.e. the re-positioning of furniture) WOULD disturb her.
"At that time Mary Kelly had most likely left to find another customer."
Why is that likely? Why?
"It's overwhelmingly likely that she didn't get blind-drunk as she had expressed a desire to go to the show the next morning."
Really? I recently attended party in which the majority of us got drunk - not "blind-drunk (I never intimated that Kelly became "blind drunk) - but drunk. Not only had we all "expressed a desire" to perform in a matinee the next day, we were financially obliged to do so. We performed the matinee fine, but we chastised ourselves for the previous night's antics. It happens. We don't always intend it to happen, but it does. And if, like Kelly, you are a regular heavy drinker, it is ***almost certain*** that it "happend" more often to her than it does to a more responsible drinker. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 250
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 3:00 am: |
|
Leanne,
Only one other person need know about the method of entry,and he certainly would not have been in the yard explaining how it could be done.
How many people would know?.People who used the yard,people like the lamplighter for instance.There could be quite a few,it was not a secluded area.The yard had free access.
Your last paragraph seems to exclude any means of entry,unless as the old saying goes,'it was left on the latch'.
Do not confuse the three terms,lock,bolt and latch.Each worked independently of each other. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1970
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 3:59 pm: |
|
G'day,
HARRY: 'I do not remember was that the lock on the door the night she was killed was one that could not be left on the latch.'
I do not fully understand the words: 'left on the latch'. Could you please explain it to me and are you sure that such a method was possible in 1888? Would such devises have been installed on the doors in cheap lodging houses, and especially on a room that was partitioned from a shed/warehouse?
'arm through the window was an entry method while she was in the room.' Please explain what you mean by the words: 'while she was in the room'. Barnett described the method to Abberline as a means they used to ENTER the room without the key.
'Only one other person need know about the method of entry,and he certainly would not have been in the yard explaining how it could be done.' I assume you mean Joseph Barnett! There is no record of the exact time he turned up at Millers Court that morning, but there is evidence that he first viewed and identified the body through the window, which points to the fact that the door at that stage wasn't opened.
JASON: 'I believe that the window was probably broken deliberately.' Yes I agree with you there, but that's another story.
'I doubt the door was locked any more than it had to be.' Locks that were common at the time locked automatically when the door was shut. The killer therefore would not have needed a key to lock the door behind him when he left. A latch however could be moved at the back of the door to release the lock and open it. That explains the 'hand-through-window' thing. The lock was described in the papers as a 'spring lock'.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1972
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 5:02 pm: |
|
G'day,
As we have moved well off the topic of this discussion board we should move to another. I don't want to start a new one about the door\lock thing because there are quite a few already. I'll put my next post on one of them!
LEANNE |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 254
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
Rodney
I agree that there was nothing of value to steal in Mary's room, however she may have left the door unlocked because she was totally pissed.
Fear of the ripper or not, if one is drunk enough, nothing seems to bother them. A person feels indestructable, safe etc. Persons totally let their guard down when they are drunk or high.
From the writings it appears that Mary was pretty drunk on the night of her death and she may have depended on her last client as a means of protection, especially if she actually knew him.
Food for thought.
regards
Julie
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 251
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 3:05 am: |
|
Leanne,
I,ll explain your queries one by one.
1 'On the latch'.The Thumblatch or ringlatch was an impliment built on to doors so that the doors need not be locked when owners were absent,but would stay closed.To open the door all that was needed was the pressure of the thumb or turning of the ring to lift the latch.Many old churches have the ringlatch on the door.These impliments were common in Victorian times.There was of course also a lock fitted,and the handle of the lock,usually a Mortise was turned at the same time.The key to the lock was not used if it was decided to leave the door on the latch.My grandfather had all three on his door,Lock,Latch and Bolt,plus there were shutters on the windows.His house was typically Victorian.
2 The arm through the window while she was in the room,obviously refers to someone else opening the door.If she was asleep when an intruder entered this is how it could have been done.
3 My point was that the killer,if he used the method of entry above,would not have been hanging about in the yard explaining to the police how it could be done.Of course I do not mean Joseph Barnett.I made it plain that several persons may have known,one of whom could have been the killer,and if he was the only one,that was all that was needed. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 252
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 3:09 am: |
|
Just one little item in case the last post was confusing.The latch itself was on the inside of the door,and the thumb plate or ring on the outside. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1974
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 5:56 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
I've moved my response to your post to: 'Mary Jane Kelly - The mystery of the key'. See ya there!
LEANNE |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2424
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Hi Leanne,
Don't you think that anyone who dressed so elaborately in the worst area in the East End, would be a huge risk taker and a complete berk? If he was doing what some people call 'slumming', (I think), and curiously seeing how the poor live, don't you think he would have left the seemingly-expensive jewellery at home? The hole thing shouts 'fancy-dress', 'disguize' to me.
Well yes, probably. But then Hutchinson's description could have been complete invention. You seem to have swallowed it whole, and are applying it to poor old Joe, despite the fact that the whole thing shouts at you 'fancy-dress' and 'disguise'.
It just seems to me like the actions of a complete Berkeley Hunt (thanks brojo) to shi* on your own doorstep wearing fancy dress.
However, if Abberline wasn't bluffing, and was honestly satisfied with Hutch's description, then maybe it wasn't considered out of the question to see slummers around the area dressed like that.
But I still don't see Joe going to the bother and expense of that gold watch and chain, when he could have ended up mugged or worse by someone like Hutch, or rumbled by an acquaintance - again like Hutch - and asked some very awkward questions.
Love,
Caz
X |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1976
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 9:21 pm: |
|
G'day Caz,
SHAM JEWELLERY mate, SHAME JEWELLERY, fakes. They were purchasable in Petticoat Lane where the clothes exchange was.
Barnett could have won the pieces at Whist, (clothes, jewellery and boots were often gambled with when one didn't have cash). And he would have wanted to persuade Mary to invite him in so they could talk. When he left her at 8:00 to go and play whist, she must have known that he didn't have money to gamble with.
Remember she laughed at something when they first met? Maybe she recognised him and 'saw' his intensions, then took him in thinking he had something for her.
Hey, he could have even asked if he could gamble away the clothes that Maria Harvey left, was told no because she planned to sell them, so he later threw them in the fire in disgust!
I know people are going to say this sounds like a Hollywood movie plot, but hasn't the whole 'Jack the Ripper' thing been the plot of many movies? Should that make us come to the conclusion that it was all fiction?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1615
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Hi.
The laughter between Client and kelly when being stopped by the former is intresting for according to Hutchinson'They both roared of laughter'
I would suggest that Mary knew that man mayby a ex client from some time back? and was shocked seeing him in that attire.
Of course he could have told a joke eg. 'In my local last night I noticed a man dressed as a sandwich walk up to the bar around 1030pm, and found it funny that the barman said'Sorry we don,t serve Food this time of night.....HA Ha.
But I somewhat doubt this.
In my opinion the speed in which the transaction was done and the arm around the shoulder and the kiss in Dorset street gives me the impression of not exactly a stranger pick up.
of course that does not make this man her killer...?
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2432
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne.
It sounds like a Hollywood movie plot - especially the bit about Joe wearing SHAM JEWELLERY from Petticoat Lane and expecting to fool the street-wise Mary with it.
Hi Richard,
I can imagine a much saucier joke would have passed between Mary and her prospective customers.
How about this one?
Two women go out drinking together and end up in a graveyard, desperate to spend a penny. (You're ok, there's no spitting involved.) One mops up with her knickers, the other uses a wreath.
Anyway, their husbands get talking the next day and one says, "God knows what my wife was up to last night. She came home with no knickers". "That's nothing", says the other. "Mine came home with a card wedged in her bottom saying, 'We'll never forget you - from all the lads in the London Fire Brigade'".
I doubt the transaction would take much longer than the joke.
Love,
Caz 
X |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1987
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 5:53 am: |
|
G'day Caz,
'especially the bit about Joe wearing SHAM JEWELLERY from Petticoat Lane and expecting to fool the street-wise Mary with it.'
I don't think casual dock labourers could afford to gamble away authentic jewellery. Barnett perhaps was bosting about what he'd won at whist, and implied that he had something she'd like in his bag: "You'll be all right for what I have told you."
He may have told her that she could sell whatever he won, competeing with Maria Harvey's clothes. Sham jewellery would have been easier to sell than authentic jewellery.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1989
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 4:27 am: |
|
G'day,
'Sham jewellery would have been easier to sell than authentic jewellery.'......and would perhaps bring in more money than clothes and the street-wise Mary Kelly would have known this.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1991
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
G'day,
Yet another thought in the argument that the well dressed man was wearing sham jewellery:
Hutchinson described the man's watch chain with a red seal on it. Not the man's watch. Perhaps there was no gold watch attached to it!
LEANNE |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 144
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Leanne,
Perhaps the watch was in a pocket where it couldn't be seen by Hutchinson?! Therefore the term pocket watch. Ha!
Carolyn |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1992
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
G'day Carolyn.
Perhaps there was nothing on it and was there to fool!
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 266
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:01 am: |
|
More likely,the watch chain,like the man himself,was imaginery. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1999
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
G'day,
And George Hutchinson was taking the biggest risk in History of being exposed as a total liar all because he was seen by someone wearing a wide-awake hat!!!!! 
LEANNE |
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 121
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 8:02 pm: |
|
See my reply on "A small point in defence of GH".  |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page