|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1899
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 3:49 am: | 
|
G'day Sandy,
Even if the previous Ripper victims had never made a sound and before he could slash the throat of his 'final' victim she managed to let out one cry, what was the Ripper supposed to think?
"Oh no! This one doesn't fit my M.O. I better let her live and have her run to the police and dob me in!"
The earlier victims most likely had their backs facing the killer, but Mary Kelly was laying on her bed facing the knife and had more chance of seeing her doom! Jack just had to alter his M.O. to suit the situation.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 213
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 4:44 am: |
|
Why should the killer of Kelly feel trapped in her room.As the door abutted the passage,then any assistance would have to come from within the court,and could be observed or heard through the window.Anyone leaving the court to summon help of police could also be observed or heard leaving.
All the killer had to do was wait and observe.We know,as he would have done ,that none of those things happened.
Today of course,the telephone might cause uncertainty,it could be used to summon help,but not in 1888.Help then, had to come by people prepared to investigate.The killer would surely realise this. |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Just for the record, those claims of Nichols and others allegedly crying out before they were attacked are generally considered to be wholly inaccurate. Other than the much-discussed "Oh Murder!" only Schwartz's report of Stride crying out, but not very loudly is based upon any police reports. The rest were in highly inaccurate press reports -- ones that contradicted other much more reliable evidence, in fact.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2603
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
It just struck me that the cry might have been"Oh!Merde Alors!
It sounds pretty much the same and after all if Mary gave her name as Marie Jaenette-as given at her inquest officially- |
Sandy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
Leanne,
Just because Mary was found flat on her back on the bed does not necessarily mean she was initially attacked in that position. The only reason why I said that Mary seemed to have been the only one to have cried out, and that that could show a different M.O. was because JtR was in the process of perfecting his crime with every subsequent killing that he did. To be in a position that would allow his victim to have an opportunity to cry out sounds like someone who has not perfected his crime. In other words, someone who was a bit clumsy about the initial attack. I'm just saying that that in itself could show that it was a different killer.
Harry,
The reason why I said that JtR would have been trapped in that room is because there was only one way out. In order to inflict the amount of damage that was done to Mary, the killer would have had to have been in a complete fit of rage. I'm not sure if while in that state of mind, he would have been keeping an ear to the door. He would have been so involved in what he was doing (blind rage).
Tufty,
I looked over the inquest and what I found was an interesting statement by Sarah Lewis. What she stated was this: "[Saw a man]...stout looking...,and not very tall. The hat was black. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for someone. Further on there was a man and woman - the latter being in drink." This man that she described sounds like the same man that Mary Ann Cox describes only in her description, this man is with Mary, whereas in Sarah's statement, the man was looking up the court as if waiting for someone, and there was a couple ahead of him. Could this man be George Hutchinson? Could this man be a pimp?
Sandy |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 214
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 3:03 am: |
|
Sandy,
The cry would have come immediately before or during the killing.The fact that the killer stayed surely shows a person in control and not in a panic situation.
At 4am in the morning,most of the court would be abed.The killing had to be carried through,of course,but it would have been reasonably quick,probably quicker than a court resident could get organised.
This killer took chances,but not unnecessary ones,he would have been aware of movement or talking from the court,and there was no danger untill the body was actually seen.
There was no danger of being trapped in the situation that ensued,and being on the spot he was aware of what that situation was. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1902
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
G'day,
SANDY: Dr. George Bagster Phillips said During his iquest testimony: "......the severance of the right carotid atery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner." There was a large amount of blood on the floor on that side of the bed.
Mary was on her back laying to the killers right, and when she saw the knife she turned her face away from it.
Why do you suppose her killer felt the need to position the body toward the left side of the bed, as if no one was ever occupying the left side? It's obvious to me that he did this moving trick after he sliced her throat and before he started the mutilating, which shows that there was a period of hesitation before the mutilation.
'To be in a position that would allow his victim to have an opportunity to cry out sounds like someone who has not perfected his crime.'
To me it shows that her killer didn't plan the kill before he entered her room. If he went there specifically to kill her, why didn't he do it while she was undressing?
LEANNE |
john wright
Sergeant
Username: Ohnjay
Post Number: 18
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
could someone please explain to me why anybody would shout "oh murder" when they know full well that everybody who hears it bloody well ignores it.
John |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 873
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Desperation. Word word word word. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1903
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
G'day,
INSTICT! fear fear fear |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1576
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Hi,
i Find myself repeating myself, but Kellys reported dream to her alleged Friend Lottie, was actually a nightmare which kelly informed Lottie during October and the subject of the dream was one of murder.
Therefore any reoccurence of such a dream, which considering the day[ when she had no sleepovers] might well have brought upon the same dream again which may have been induced by over indulgence of alcohol and a true fear of the room that she slept in, as is understandable because the room and the bed was the site of her original dream.
Richard. |
Tuffty
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 5:31 pm: |
|
sandy,
that is interesting, and i agree...it could be a pimp. i think i read somewhere that mary was a slightly higher class prostitute becase she had her own lodgings, maybe if you were higher class you had a pimp to handle your busness? i really don't know much about prostitution, least of all prostitution in 1888, but i do know that prostitutes pay their pimps out of the money theyve earned.
the other victims, like mary ann nichols could aparently be 'bought' for 2 to 3 pence, and she was concidered a low class prostitute, so i can't see her having a pimp, or sharing her small funds with him... i can't help but think the ripper killed mary... this guy was sick, what he did he 'enjoyed'...the fact he was alone in a room with her seams to me like a kid in a candy store theory.
he really went to town. maybe the mutilations he inflicted on her face were either to show his pure detest for 'working' women, or he simply did it because he could.
i agree with what you said about the killer being in a blind rage, but his rage could have been calculated =/ scary thought |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
Hi John,
But the point is that they didn't know that everyone ignored cries of "murder", as there are plenty of examples of people calling that out and having police or other help show up. I don't know that there was anything else that could have been called out to assure a response, and then we don't know how much time Mary (if it was her) had to think about whatever she was going to yell.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 41
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
"Therefore any reoccurence of such a dream...may have been induced by over indulgence of alcohol and a true fear of the room that she slept in".
So it's a matter of mere coincidence, is it, that Mary Kelly, having dreamed of murder, should have REAL murder exacted upon her a few hours thereafter?
I still find this hypotheses terribly baffling, I'm afraid.
All good wishes,
Ben |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1579
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
I do not find it at all baffling, if this dream that kelly told Lottie did occur after the double event which the latter claims, then being that Barnett was at that point still residing with Kelly and human instinct is to tell ones partner of a nasty dream it is a good chance that he more then anyone would have been aware of it.
The eve before her death Barnett would have heard the words' Then I shall not be seeing you again this evening Mary jane' uttered by Harvey, giving him the impression that evening she had no sleepovers planned and therefore would venture out for the evening and have a good chance of being accosted.
The dream originally i would imagined came from natural fear of the whitechapel killer being in that area , mayby a knowledge also of the victims as friends, and also by Barnetts own admissson that he read the newspaper accounts to Mary.
Coincedence that a reoccurence of that dream may have occured on that very night / morning is not that hard to believe as that was only one of a couple of nights that she spent in the room alone at night since Barnett left on the 30th.
Put it this way Ben.
If you were a 24 year old female living in the district that 'Jack' was boyant in , and you recently had a bad dream in room 13 that you was being murdered then any insecurity such as spending the night alone in that hovel and under the influence of alcohol could result in what could be described as 'The Horrors of drink' that comment being the one that Mary Jane described[ allegedly] to a certain Mrs Maxwell.
might well have aided that dream [ nightmare[ reoccurence.
Regards Richard. |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 43
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 6:02 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
I am not for a moment negating the possibility that Mary Jane Kelly *might* have been plagued by nightmares as a direct result of the Whitechapel murders. What I do find unfathomably unlikely, however, is the scenario that places MJK in room 13 at Millers Court, screaming "murder" in most audible fashion and subsequently **GETTING** murdered!
An absolutely astonishing coincidence, don't you think?
Of course, you may be spot on. We cannot and should not rule out an "astonishing coincidence" altogether, but we must be circumspect here and admit to ourselves that yours is not the most LIKELY scenario.
The most likely scenario is that Mary Kelly was disturbed from her sleep (or drunken stupour) by someone with discernably murderous intentions.
As I opined earlier, she probably shouted murder to alert everyone in the immediate locality to her imminent danger. She did so for the same reason that the boy cried wolf; for the same reason that a man in a burning building would shout "fire"; for the same reason that Frederick Fleet shouted "Iceberg right ahead" from Titanic's crows nest...you get the idea.
As ever, wisdom lies in seeking out the screamingly obvious conclusion. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1583
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 3:08 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
Coincedence that on the very night /morning she had a nightmare of murder, she happened to be murdered.
But the whole point is if Lotties memory is not a false account then Kelly did have the original dream whilst lying asleep on that bed in room 13, and it is a fact that a week or two later she was killed.
The above paragraph could also be claimed a amazing coincedence but apparently happened.
My question is of course' Was the killer of kelly aware of that nightmare and made a point of killing kelly on that very same bed as if in a sordid way stating 'Yes Mary dreams do come true'.
My suspect being....? Now i must not appear bias.
Regards Richard. |
Sandy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Hello all! I have been without my computer for a while, so sorry for the late response.
Leanne- "It's obvious to me that he did this moving trick after he sliced her throat and before he started the mutilating, which shows that there was a period of hesitation before the mutilation". - Wouldn't this "hesitation" show that there is a possibility that the killer was not JtR? What I mean to say is that if there was in fact a hesitation, couldn't this signify a killer who was not completely sure of himself, or what he was doing?
"To me it shows that her killer didn't plan the kill before he entered her room".- Does this sound like JtR?
Harry - "...he would have been aware of movement or talking from the court, and there was no danger until the body was actually seen." - As far as we know, other than the two windows, the door was the only exit. Just because the killer would have been able to hear anyone in the court does not mean he would have had adequate time to get out without anyone seeing him. There was a light across from her door wasn't there? I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere, but obviously until I can quote the source I could be mistaken about that one. Everyone in Whitechapel at this time knew there was a killer out there. People were scared, and I am sure anxious to have this killer caught. Being in a small room with his victim and only one true exit would have made his situation more precarious.
I am not saying that the cry of "Oh, Murder" most definitely proves that JtR was not the killer, I just feel that Mary being able to have the time to cry out seems different than with the other victims, and that there is a possibility that this difference could be significant.
Also, yes I am aware of the testimony by Dr. Phillips, however where she was when her throat was cut does not necessarily mean that is the position she was in when she was initially attacked.
Sandy |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 916
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
As to whether anyone would respond to "Oh Murder" I point you to the modern (and parallel) phenomenon of the car alarm. What do you do when you are in a public parking lot and hear a car alarm go off? Do you whip out your cell and call the police? Do you rush over to make a citizens arrest of the car thief? I trow not! You've heard so many false alarms you shrug and go your way. At least two people reported hearing the cry. Niether one roused and did anything. Such cries were common in Whitechapel. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 256
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 2:59 am: |
|
Sandy,
A witness,Mrs Prater,states that about 1.30a.m.when she entered the court,it was in complete darkness,so if that be true then the light in the court could not have been lit.
As Kelly,s door was nearest the passageway,the killer could have left if there were signs of anyone investigating the cry with a good chance of being first out.He took a risk and stayed,and from his point of view it was a correct decision.
The risks did not eventuate. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1978
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 4:58 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
Where on earth did you read that???
Elizabeth Prater said at the Inquest: "....returned to it [Miller's Court] at about one a.m. Friday morning. I stood at the corner until about twenty minutes past one. No one spoke to me. McCarthy's shop was open and I called in, and then went to my room. I should have seen a glimmer of light in going up the stairs if there had been a light in deceased's room, but I noticed none." She said nothing about the lodging house lights not being lit and that she "DIDN'T NOTICE" a light coming from Kelly's room! Was she looking for a light? If so she would have snuck a look through her window.
She then stated that after a sleep she was woken by her kitten at about 3:30 or 3:45 a.m., and heard a faint cry of "MURDER!" She ignored it and went back to sleep.
I remember reading somewhere that she later said that the cry of "MURDER" must have been after 4:00a.m., because the lodging house light had been turned off, (obviously being the time they were always extinguished). But how could she have known that if she didn't look outside, but turned and went back to sleep?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1982
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
G'day,
In Phillip Sugden's 'The Complete History of Jack the Ripper' on page 329, it says of Elizabeth Prater: 'But at the inquest she reflected further: 'I noticed the lodging house light was out, so it was after 4 probably.' I would have then asked her: "But how could you have known that, if you turned over and went back to sleep?"
LEANNE |
Sandy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Leanne,
Is it possible that the lodging house light would have shown into her room? If it did, then maybe that is how she knew that the light was out.
Sandy |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 258
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:35 am: |
|
Leanne,
Paul Harrison's book,'Jack the Ripper,The murder Solved' page88.He states Prater gave evidence at the inquest on Moday 12 November1888,and that her evidence stated she went down the court about 1.20am,that there were no lights visible in Kelly's room,and that the court was in total darkness.
I have posted this account before in answer to your question as to where I came across this information.If it is wrong,then the source is wrong.Now from which account do you perceive the light to have been on?. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1983
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:53 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
The 'Daily Telegraph' November 13 stated that Elizabeth Prater said: "I stood at the corner until about twenty minutes past one. No one spoke to me. McCarthy's shop was open, and I called in, and then went to my room. I should have seen a glimmer of light in going up the stairs if there had been a light in deceased's room, but I noticed none." Nothing about the entire court being in total darkness, and nothing about her going down at about 1:20. She hadn't yet returned to her room.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1984
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 5:05 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
The 'Saint james Gazette' November 13 says that Prater said: "There might have been a light in the deceased's room, but she did not take any notice."
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1985
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
The book: 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion' contains police statements that were in the hand of Abberline taken on the 9th, plus official papers of the Inquest held at the Greater London Record Office.
The official Inquest papers say that Prater said: "On the stairs I could see a glimmer through the partition if there had been a light in the deceaseds room. I might not have noticed it." again she says nothing about all the lodging house lights being off.
The only difference between what she said on the 9th and what she said at the Inquest, is the amount of screams she later heard. On the 9th she said she heard 2 or 3, and at the Inquest she heard only one.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1986
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 5:39 am: |
|
G'day Sandy,
Perhaps Elizabeth Prater's bed was underneath her windows looking out onto the court. Does anyone know how many lights were in the yard, and where they were positioned?
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 261
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 2:06 am: |
|
Leanne,
So I expect there to be no more Where on earth did you read that???.
Nothing in the three excerpts quoted by you above indicate the light was on that night,neither do they negate the the writings of Harrison saying Prater testified the court was in total darkness.
As Harrison's suspect in the Ripper Murders was Joseph Barnett,it is strange you query his research. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1988
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 4:15 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
'Leanne,
So I expect there to be no more Where on earth did you read that???.'
I have no idea what you're talking about. Please tell me which of my posts you are referring to.
I quoted from the official files, mate, how more accurate can you get?
Have you read the reviews of Paul Harrison's book? Look at the one here on 'Casebook'. He researched the wrong Joseph Barnett, (there were at least two living in Whitechapel at the time), so I wouldn't trust any of his research. He also got critisized for not giving credit to Bruce Paley, (who research the right Barnett before him).
LEANNE |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3440
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Just re reading this thread-
Nats- the cry of 'Oh Merde' with the double stress on the d would certainly sound like 'Oh mare dah' (phonetically) wouldn't it!
Just a thought
Suzi |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 264
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 2:14 am: |
|
Leanne,
You asked me twice in different posts where I got the information about the court being in complete darkness from,and twice I replied and told you it was from Paul Harrison's book.
Whether or not you trust Harrison's research is beside the point.Can you prove him to be wrong?. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1993
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 2:41 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
It's not up to me to prove him wrong! HE HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG about the Joseph Barnett issue, so I have never bothered to seek his book!
Now the information about the lodging house lights being off isn't in the official files! Can't we just forget this issue?
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 267
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:19 am: |
|
Leanne,
I am quite happy to drop the issue,however your last statement is not an answer to a rather important point,the state of light in the court the night Kelly was killed.
It is also a fact of the court light being on is not in the Official files.
I have not been reffering to the Lodging house,I thought it was the Court light that was the subject of discussion.Now I am perplexed.I do not understand what you mean by the Lodging House.Where was it situated?.
Just as a point of clarification,and not as a continuing arguement. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1994
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 4:17 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
By "Lodging House" I meant Miller's Court. Sorry if it was not officially a lodging house, but it was a place were people lodged....Ok COURT LIGHT, sorry!
I was hoping that someone else could jump in here and tell us exactly where the court lights were situated. I will have to look for and study the layout diagrams of Miller's Court.
Asking people whether the COURT LIGHTS were on or off, I suppose was like asking them if MacCarthy ever issued Kelly with a key to her room, i.e.obvious.
I'm trying to find more about Harrison's book too.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1995
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 8:01 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
Paul Harrison's Joseph Barnett was born in 1860, which would have made him 28 years old in 1888.
Bruce Paley's Joseph Barnett was born on May the 25th 1858, making him 30 years old in 1888 and the correct age.
I found it written here on 'Casebook': 'Paul Harrison published his 'Jack the Ripper, The Mystery Solved' in 1991, forwarding Barnett as the Ripper, but the book was marred by flawed research.' That was someone else's comment not mine! I think you've found another example of his 'flawed research'.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 268
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 3:34 am: |
|
So according to Prater the light was also not lit in the morning when she expected it to be.Seems to me that Harrison was right and the Court light was not lit at any time that night.
That is if Prater was not speaking of two different lights.Again the houses in the court were private houses,not lodging houses,although they were rented ,so is the lodging house Prater speaks of a building such as Crossingham's?
It is the little things that have never been fully explained by any author or reputed researcher that may have significance.
The court light on or off is a case in point,and it has value in determining if Cox was correct in her description of the midnight visitor.How could she detect colour if the court was in complete darkness.
My last post till after xmas,so a happy time to all,and here is a little question to think on.A little off topic maybe,but this is it.Why did Barnett have to reach through the window to open the door?
If you do not imbibe too much the answer should be simple. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2001
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
G'day Harry,
'So according to Prater the light was also not lit in the morning when she expected it to be.'
When I first read this I thought AHHH%#@! Then in the morning I realized what the problem is:
Your taking Prater's words: "I should have seen a glimmer of light in going up the stairs if there had been a light in deceased's room, but I noticed none.", as meaning that the court lights were out altogether. I take it as meaning lights specifically from room 13. This is obviously how Harrison interpreted it too.
The official papers say that Prater added: "On the stairs I could see a glimmer through the partition if there had been a light in the deceaseds room. I might not have noticed it." Notice her words: "IN THE DECEASED"S ROOM". She was not even talking about the court lights, and from an illustration I can see that one was situated almost OUTSIDE Kelly's door! Prater was referring to no light from the fireplace or a candle.
'Why did Barnett have to reach through the window to open the door?'
As Mary Kelly's front door key was missing, Barnett explained to Abberline how he and her would reach through the broken window pane to open her door, which locked automatically when it was closed. This was an attempt by Barnett to explain why the killer did not necessarily escape with the key, as the press initially thought. He said the key had been missing for some time, but was not specific about the length of time.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on December 24, 2005) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2002
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
G'day,
I also see that the key must have gone missing when Barnett moved out and the window was broken, because if the window wasn't broken how on earth did Mary get into her room?
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 271
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 3:05 am: |
|
No Leanne,I am not confusing lights in Kelly's room with any other light.Prater,according to the books I have read,spoke both of the Court and Lodging house light.It was through the lack of the latter that Prater says she may have mistook the time she was woken.
I can find no evidence whatsoever that Barnett described to Aberline that the door locked automatically when the door closed.
Aberline states that Barnett had informed him that since the key had been lost they had put their hands through a broken window,and moved back the catch,which was quite easy.There is no indication to signify whether this was done to open the door,close the door or both.
The assumption that the lock was a spring type,is a latter day one.There is nothing said by witnesses in 1888,which indicates what type of lock it was.(any other comment about the door I will post on the appropriate thread but just one last comment.The door need be operated from the inside because it could not be done so from outside.Why?) |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2004
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 5:12 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
BECAUSE THE KEY WAS MISSING!!!!!!!
Abberline said at Kelly's 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 was there & used by him." How does Harrison interpret that testimony?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2005
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
'The assumption that the lock was a spring type,is a latter day one.There is nothing said by witnesses in 1888,which indicates what type of lock it was.'
The 'Daily Telegraph' November 10 1888 said: 'The last person to have left the place must have closed the door behind him, taking with him the key from the spring lock, as it is missing.'
The 'Daily News' November 10 1888 said: 'The door was fasted, not that it had been locked from the inside, but having a catch lock, the person who had come out last had merely slammed the door behind him, and it has thus became fastened.' You need to do more reading.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 273
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 4:55 am: |
|
Leanne,
Did the paper reps see the lock or were they too making assumptions.Were they witnesses?Did they publish pictures?
I know Barnett put his hand through the window to slide the catch,but why did he do so?Study the door carefully and tell us all about it.
It is not a silly request,it is important testimony to the case.
If you cannot answer those questions it is you who needs to do a lot more reading.
And of course the paper is wrong in saying the last person to have left the place must have closed the door behind him,TAKING WITH HIM THE KEY FROM THE SPRING LOCK,AS IT IS MISSING.
Absolute false assumtions as Barnett reported the key had been missing some time.And you cite that as evidence the paper knew what it was talking about. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2010
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 5:57 am: |
|
G'day Harry,
'Did the paper reps see the lock or were they too making assumptions." I'd say there's a pretty good chance that a lot of them saw the door\lock. They wouldn't have all waited for a 'Central News' conference, because they would have all rushed to be the first to report the news.
'I know Barnett put his hand through the window to slide the catch,but why did he do so?' TO OPEN THE DOOR! THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY DONE BY USING THE KEY, WHICH WAS MISSING!
Obviously some reporters were at the scene before Barnett was there, before the door was opened and rushed to get their stories out. In this rush one paper mistakingly reported that Kelly had a young boy living with her, but that confusion has been explained to me by an expert.
Barnett must have told Abberline that the key was missing AFTER the door was forced open, because everyone thought that the killer had taken the key, so that story appeared in the press.
I have done so much reading about this! It was not recorded anywhere the exact time that Barnett arrived but if he was there before 1:30p.m. when the door was opened, he could have instructed them how to open the door!
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 274
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 2:38 am: |
|
Leanne,
We know from official reports that the door was not opened till p.m. that day,only a few people had seen inside the room,and none of those are reported to have described the lock. None of them appears to have been a reporter.The daily Telegraph does report the key missing,so Barnetts explanation must have circulated by the tenth,yet the paper got it wrong.So much for publishing fact.Barnett could have explained quite a lot,but there is nothing anywhere to say HE described the lock as a spring type.He reported a Catch.
The Daily news report.What is wrong with it.Well plenty. If you have read so much you must see the flaws in their reporting.How was the door slammed to?It only needs a little common sense to answer that.So how do you explain what that paper may have surmised as to how the door was slammed.
So What about the door.You haven't attempted to answer that.Let me start you off."The door to Kelly's room was the rear side entrance to number 13 Dorset Street".Now you carry on.What I have said was very pertinent to her death.You are after all,the researcher,not I. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2013
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
G'day Harry,
'The daily Telegraph does report the key missing,so Barnetts explanation must have circulated by the tenth,yet the paper got it wrong.'
Why do you say that Barnett's explanation must have circulated by the tenth? The key was missing and it wasn't found in the room. It was everyone's opinion when the body was found that the killer must have taken the key and the reporter noted that, so to him it was fact!
The most common type of lock fitted to warehouses at the time was a 'spring lock', and Kelly's room was once part of McCarthy's warehouse.
Another name for a lock type is a 'night-latch' which is operated by a key from the outside and a knob\catch from the inside. This describes Barnett's window-trick perfectly, so I'd say the lock on Kelly's door was a 'night-latch'.
'So What about the door.You haven't attempted to answer that.'
I'm not sure why you are asking me to describe her door. All I can do is try to write in my own words what other people have written. And it wasn't the rear entrance to number 13 Dorset Street at all. It was the rear entrance to number 26 Dorset Street, which was owned by John McCarthy.
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on December 28, 2005) |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 275
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 4:17 am: |
|
Leanne,
Barnett reported the key missing on the 9th the day the body was found,the paper reported it on the tenth,So they should have known the full details and that the key had been missing some days prior to the murders.
Regardless of what type of locks
were more common,it has never been ascertained and nowhere reported what type of lock was on Kelly's door.
We do not know it was a Night Latch type,So the assumption it describes Barnetts window trick,is mere wishful thinking.
So It was 26 Dorset Street,and I made a mistake,but that can be forgiven being as it is the first one.
I shall be posting pictures of 'catches'on the key thread.They were locks in themselves,and no way connected to the main lock.
Now answer the other questions I put to you.How was the door locked by the killer for one?.In detail please. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 2017
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
G'day Harry,
Joseph Barnett was taken to the police station and interviewed by Abberline shortly after he appeared on the 9th, and after he looked through the window at the body.
He must have spoken to the press as soon as he came back because 'Lloyds Newspaper' reported that he said: "They kept me about four hours". According to the 'Star' he said that police kept him for two and a half hours. These newspapers never mentioned the missing key / locked door. He would have just been interested in clearing suspicion from himself anyway.
The 'Eastern Post & City Chronicle': 'An arrest has been made, and it is so far satisfactory to learn that this is not supposed to be another of the series of Whitechapel murders which have caused so much sensation in the past. It is reported that the cause of the dreadful crime was jealousy.'
'So they should have known the full details and that the key had been missing some days prior to the murders.' In the mad rush to get their stories out, Joseph Barnett was referred to as 'Joseph Kelly', 'James Kelly', 'John Kelly', 'Joseph Barrett', 'Dan' and even 'Jack'. Some papers said Mary Kelly was otherwise known as 'Ginger' and 'Fair Emma', yet there is no mention of these aliases anywhere else.
'How was the door locked by the killer for one?' This was never treated as a 'locked door/missing key' mystery and Abberline's single sentence: "Barnett informs me that the key..." satisfied the Coroner.
Therefore I'd say that a key wasn't needed to open the door from the inside, the killer opened it just enough to pear out and see that no one was approaching, stepped out, closed the door behind him locking it automatically, and then casually wandered outside. Remember Mary Ann Cox said she heard footsteps leaving the Court at 6:15a.m. These were mistakingly believed to be those of a policeman.
LEANNE |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 279
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 2:15 am: |
|
Leanne,
The story as published by the Telegraph on the 10,which reports the killer taking the key,cites no source for this comment.Whether it was the Editor penned it or a reporter,the source as far as we know must be one of the two.And the comment was false. |
jason_connachan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
I would suggest not many inhabitants of Millers Court would be tempted to get up during the middle of a winters night, get dressed, then go looking for a policeman/or investigate the Court, unless a major disturbance had been heard. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
