Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Archive through May 19, 2003 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Victims » Mary Jane Kelly » The mystery of the key » Archive through May 19, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 169
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 5:23 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi everyone,
Leanne suggested , and I totally agree that this topic deserves its own thread.
This mystery could well be the biggest clue ie; at least in the Millers court murder.
It was reported at the time that the device on kellys door was a spring lock.
Which simply means the door would lock automaticaly when shutting it on leaving, and again when entering the room, therefore a key was only needed when entering the room,
According to Barnett the key had been missing for some time, and the only way to access the room was by reaching through the broken window and slipping the bolt, this could have only happened that way since the pane of glass was smashed. if the key had gone missing before that , then they would have had to leave the window unlocked, and entered by lifting the window up and reaching through using the same method.
I have mentioned my ideas about the key on other threads recently, and common sence tells me that, for obvious reasons the lock was proberly a cheap standard device that needed a key to enter, and a key to lock once inside.
After all the room was simply a back parlour of number 26, Dorset Street.
So all you locksmiths, and lovers of Hitchcock' lets get to the Key of the matter...
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton

Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 2:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I have a sample of the type of lock I believe was fitted to MJK's door. It is a cheap common type around since the Regency period and known as a Night Latch.

Various errors have been made about this type of lock. It only needs a key to open it if it has been locked!. If MJK did what a lot of us do, leave it on the latch then a simple push is all that is required to open the door.

There is evidence to suggest that MJK did exactly that.

The window panes that were broken were the top right and the bottom left. This is also established. The only pane that you can open the locked door by reaching through is the upper right. It is not a simple matter. I constructed a mock up of the corner of MJK's room many years ago to test this theory.

The way to do it is to stand on the sill, hold on to the down pipe with your right hand and reach through the broken pane with your left. Bear in mind you are up to your armpits in a broken pane of glass when you do this, a single slip and you would be in serious trouble.

I have a mock up of a door fitted with the lock to demonstrate if anyone's interested.

Bob
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SirRobertAnderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert

Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 2:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"I have a mock up of a door fitted with the lock to demonstrate if
anyone's interested."

I'd love to see some scans of the mock up!

Sir Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson

Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 2:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Wasn't it the bottom right pane that was broken?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton

Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 5:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Nope top right bottom left, this is in the inquest testimony.

Bob
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert

Post Number: 119
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 6:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Bob

I still don't understand why McCarthy should break his own door down, when he'd have known what kind of lock was fitted to it.

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 325
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, May 14, 2003 - 11:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

Richard, I told you that I already started a new thread about the key on the Mary Jane Kelly board!!!!!

I started with a post containing first, what Inspector Abberline said at her inquest about the window/key issue, how the window was broken during the couples row in October and even why Mr McCarthy agreed to brake down his door!

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 326
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 12:11 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

BOB: Where in the inquest report does it prove which panes were broken? I'm having trouble finding it!

Thomas Bowyer said: "I refer to plan and I mean the farthest pane of the first window the smallest one." He was describing the pane that he looked through. I can't see that anyone else mentions the window at the inquest.

Viewing the photograph of the window here in 'Official Documents', it looks like the top frame near the door is smashed, and the bottom frame near the door.

On the morning her body was found, McCarthy was ordered to break down his door with a pick-axe. As the room was once part of his shed, I'd say that it held the cheapest of locks available. Anyone sticking his head through the window that morning, would have seen how easy it was to reach the lock via the window. If one of these great minds tried, but failed, that means the killer locked the door with a key!

What makes you say that Kelly's door just needed a simple push? At Mary Kelly's inquest, Inspector Abberline testified: "I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time & they opened the door by reaching through the window."

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert

Post Number: 120
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 4:26 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne, from the times of the posts, I think Richard got there first!

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn

Post Number: 170
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 6:58 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne,
It was not my intention to jump que on the key thread,
Simply I was waiting to go to work wednesday morning, and as their was not a thread on this matter at that time, started it off.
Anyway apologies for that, also regarding your E. Mail,excellent idea,and I will endeavour to give the matter my full attention..
Regards Richard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 328
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 6:59 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

Only Just! When I started it, I didn't notice this one! Oh well, Stephen will probably delete the other one when he gets back from overseas!

I thought it was more appropriate for the Mary Jane Kelly board.

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Charles Linford
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robert

Post Number: 122
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 8:21 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi Bob

To answer my own question : maybe the damage to the door was minimal, as it seems to have been padlocked afterwards, rather than replaced. McCarthy would have lost only a cheap lock.

Is that it?

Robert
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton

Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 10:39 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dear Robert,

You're absolutely correct. McCarthy disn't smash or break down his door he inserted the tip of a pickaxe between the door and the frame and carefully levered it open. The damage would have been minimal, in all liklihood he would have probably forced a couple of screws holding the retaining box from the door frame.

Why did he do that? Well I would suggest that given the option of doing that or perching on a window sill up to your armpits in broken glass he probably thought that was a safer option. Personally I agree with him!

Bob
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Monty
Sergeant
Username: Monty

Post Number: 43
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 12:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bob,

Saved a few bob too !!

Monty
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 331
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 4:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day,

Were you there, Bob????

If it was that easy, then that presents another way that the killer could have entered! I don't think McCarthy would have been too concerned about money at the time, and it would have made the police look suspiciously at McCarthy!

RICHARD: Don't worry about the two threads issue, I'm sure Stephen will fix it up as soon as he gets back!

Did you get a private email from me Richard? I sent it via 'Casebook', so it might require Stephen to do something! If not I'll have to type another and send it via 'Big Pond Outlook Express'!

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton

Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 5:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne,
Yes it was that easy. Give me a nail bar and I'll open 75% of doors today with minimum damage. What do you think was required to open a flimsy door -dynamite?

A sketch made at the time shows exactly how McCarthy opened the door. Don't forget the door was secured later with a padlock, something not possible if the door had been severely damaged. Why do you find this hard to believe?

Bob
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 333
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 2:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day Bob,

At Kelly's inquest, George Phillips said: "I remained until 1:30 p.m. when the door was broken open by McCarthy under the direction of Superintendent Arnold. On the door being opened it knocked against a table..." From this statement, I'd say that McCarthy did minimal damage to his door. For it to knock against a table, it must have atleast remained in one piece.

After looking at that photo, what do you say about the broken panes?

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton

Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 5:11 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dear Everyone,

There seems to be a bit of confusion over the window in MJK's room and which panes were actually broken. Let me try and sort it out.

First off let us deal with the famous photograph. Point one I have looked at this photgraph hundreds of times and failed to discern any damage to any of the panes. (although I am the first to admit this would depend on what copy I was looking at) Point 2. there is absolutely nothing to indicate when this photograph was taken! I have heard some versions say it was taken by Matters for his book at the same time he took the famous chair outside Millers Court photo.

Anyway on with the facts. The window was a sash window consisting of two frames moving up and down in a channel with the ability of being locked together centrally to form a single window. Each frame contains a central vertical divider subdividing it into two sections, each section containing a pane of glass.

So looking at the window with both frames fastened centrally you are faced with a window apparently consisting of four panes of glass, upper left, upper right, lower left and lower right.

First thing to establish is how many panes were broken? Answer two. Source for this, John McCarthy's statement at inquest:
"They lived comfortably together, but once broke the two windows..."

and Dr Bagster Phillips statement at inquest:
"2 of the panes in the window nearest the passage were broken.........."

Now which two were broken. One broken pane was on the top row and the other was on the bottom row. Source for this, Dr Bagster Phillips at inquest again:
"...I looked through the lower broken pane"

If he describes the pane as the lower one it must be to differentiate it from the other which must have been above it.

So we now have two broken panes one from the top row and the other from the bottom row. But which two? Let us deal with the bottom row first. The bottom broken pane must have been bottom left. Source Thomas Bowyer's statement at inquest:
".....I went round the corner and there was a broken window in the farthest window"

This statement doesn't make any sense and Inspector Charles Ledger realising what Bowyer meant to say interrupts:
"I have made plans (produced) and they are the correct plans of the premises"

The plans are then shown to Bowyer who corrects his previous mis-statement by saying:
"I refer to plan and I mean the farthest pane of the first window the small one. I looked in the window there was a curtain over the window I pulled the curtain aside"

Bowyer has now correctly identified the broken pane as being the farthest pane of the first window, which equates to bottom left.

So if the bottom row broken pane is positively identified as bottom left, the top broken pane must be top right. Why? Because it is impossible to reach the latch on the door from the top left and since Barnett states that MJK and himself used this method to open the door sometimes this only leaves top right.

This also indicates that the top right was broken first and the bottom left was broken during the row the night Barnett moved out.

Bob Hinton
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100

Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 6:02 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but how do you deduce that Bowyer's "farthest pane" is the lower broken one?

If top left and bottom right were broken, couldn't he have meant the top left one?

Chris Phillips
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton

Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 7:14 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dear Chris,

We know that Bowyers broken pane was far left. Let us for a moment say that you are right and it is far left top, which makes the other broken pane bottom right.

If that is the layout, why did Bowyer walk right past the first pane he came to which would have been far easier to look through, and go to the top left and a stretch to look through?

We know the bottom pane was capable of being looked through, because that's the one Dr Phillips used:
"...I looked through the lower broken pane"

Don't forget Bowyer was on a nosy mission, he couldn't get an answer at the door so was intent on peering in through the window. It seems inconceivable he would pass the broken window that would make his task easier to perform and chose instead the broken window that would be a stretch.

Bob


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100

Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 7:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I see what you mean. That sounds logical.

For what it's worth, in the reproduction of the photo in Farson's book, there is certainly a dark shape in the upper right hand pane that makes it look broken.

The reproduction of the photo in the "Victorian London" section of this site isn't as clear. But the caption is quite definite about it being taken on the day of the murder. I do remember noticing in the past that the condition of the drainpipe in the photo matched closely the details in one of the contemporary drawings. I find it difficult to believe the photo could have been taken in the 1920s.

Chris Phillips

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker

Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, May 16, 2003 - 1:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Greetings all,

I must confess I don't buy into the locked door theory. Here's a few reasons why.

1) The descriptions given at the inquest are compatible with a spring lock.

2) The police never treated it as a "Locked room" mystery. If there had been anything to show that the lock had actually been locked with the missing key then it seems a fair certainty that Barnett would have been questioned much more enthusiastically. As would McCarthy and anyone else who might have had access to a key. Indeed, Abberline seemed to dismiss the idea of locked room puzzle at the inquest.

3) If we think through what is actually being proposed by the locked room theorists we start to run into trouble almost immediately. We know that after the key went missing, MJK and JB were forced to manipulate the catch from the inside. The locked room theorists make the assumption that the lock required the key to "lock", the catch is a seperate beast.

Right. Here's where we start to run into issues with this line of reasoning.

3a) On the inside of the door, we presumably have a keyhole (To lock and unlock the door), and a "catch" which presumably holds the door closed.

3b) Since we know that MJK and JB were forced to manipulate the catch from the INSIDE, we know that there wasn't a way to access the catch from the ouside without the key.

3c) In addition, since we know that the lock catch was used after the key went missing, we can presume that it would/could be latched. If there are 2 methods of closing/fastening the door, why leap to the conclusion that it was locked and not latched?

3d) Why would the catch not be driven by the key on both sides or using an accessible catch on both sides? Making it drive off of the key on one side is needlessly complicated. (UNLESS of course it's a spring based lock that
locks whenever the door is closed. Which could be manipulated by the key externally or the catch on the inside.)

3e) It should be noted that the description of sliding the catch is inconsistent with the idea that it could be used to LOCK the door in a manner that would require an external key.

4) The arugment that is always brought up to bolster the locked room theory is that McCarthy pried the door open with a pickaxe. IMO, this is silliness. It rests upon the bizarre notion that simply because something wasn't done, that it was impossible to do. This simply makes no sense. We don't know whether it wasn't thought of, or if it was rejected for one reason or another.

4a) As someone who has been in McCarthy's position (Discovery of a body of someone I knew) and I can pretty much guarantee that the lock wasn't formost in his mind. He was probably at least partly in shock, and beyond the immediate concern over what had happened to MJK, he had to deal with the potential impact on business, as well as the fact that his lodging house was suddenly the center of attention in london.

4b) We simply don't know how smart McCarthy was. Some people are great at "thinking outside the box", others
are not.

4c) Most people when confronted with a lock that they have no key for, they simply don't think any further. As an example, when the installation technicians set up the door security at one of my past jobs, they were suprised when I was able to open the doors with a piece of paper within minutes of their installation. They were not stupid people, but the idea simply had not occured to them.

4d) The police were focussed on securing the scene, not on alternate ways of gaining access.

4e) Even if it was thought of there are reasons it might not have been done.

4e I) The possibility of fingerprints was raised in a letter to the editor of a paper, so perhaps that was taken
into account. (I don't believe it myself)

4e II) Bob had a good point regarding the danger of sticking your arm through a broken glass window. I wouldn't

4e III) Would you want to reach in and touch something Jack's hand had presumably been on? Judging by the view from the window, I can easily imagine that someone would avoid sticking their hand in if at all possible.

Have a good weekend all!

Regards,

John

P.S. Hmmm... Identing with tabs doesn't seem to work so please forgive the cryptic outline notation.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 341
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 9:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day John,

Mary Kelly's door locked automatically once closed, yet could be unlocked from the inside, but not the outside, by moving a catch. (which is why the pair used the window trick.)

To exit, the Killer simply moved back the catch, stepped out and shut the door behing him, (the table just happened to move itself behind the door, once he was out!)

On the morning her body was found, the police were focused on securing the scene against curious people and calling for the bloodhounds. They didn't want to get into her room at that stage, because they didn't want to confuse the bloodhounds with everyone's scent.

Shortly after 11:00am, Superintendent Arnold arrived and said that the bloodhounds weren't coming, and gave orders for the door to be broken open.

John McCarthy did this with a pickaxe. He didn't mutilate his door, because it was merely padlocked once everyone had gone home. The fact that McCarthy opened the door with a pickaxe is recorded fact! No one had time to think about opening the door via the window!

It's in the official records that the door knocked against a table once it was opened. How did the killer push the table against the door, once he'd gone?.... I know, let's start a new board called: 'Who Moved Mary's Table?'

Fingerprinting was such a new toy, that they were still testing it's success.

Police didn't even consider how Mary's killer moved her table. They had other things to worry about. They weren't even concerned about the key and window. No one even recorded which 2 panes were broken.

LEANNE
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Hacker
Sergeant
Username: Jhacker

Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Sunday, May 18, 2003 - 10:10 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Leanne,

For once I agree with a good deal of what you said. The killer opened the door and exited the room which locked behind him. No locked room puzzle at all. No implication of Barnett due to the key. I'm glad we can put that behind us.

However I think you're way off base in your assumption that the killer moved the table. There's no reason at all to think that the table was moved, or if so that it would have been done after he was gone.

My office door knocks into the filing cabinet next to the door every time I open it. The door swings far wider than is necessary to admit a person, and will hit the filing cabinet if opened to a greater extent than a 95 degree angle.

In the photo of MJK on the bed we can see that the table is pushed up against the bed, in a natural position. Not out in front of the door. It seems clear to me that the table wasn't moved, but that the table happened to lie within the arc of the opening door. (Which is hardly suprising given the confined nature of the room)

I also think you are wrong in regards to their concern as to the key and window. They were clearly concerned enough to resolve the issue of the key. (Inquest Testimony) And they certainly did record which 2 windows were broken, unfortunately they weren't particularly clear in doing so. (Again, see the inquest testimony.)

Considering how many records are lost to us, it's sheer folly IMO to assume that anything we cannot find documentation for was never thought of, or followed up on. Unfortunately, what we have available to us is only a small fraction of what was recorded at the time.

Regards,

John
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne

Post Number: 344
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 6:38 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

G'day John,

But how close was the door to the edge of the bed?

If they resolved the issue of the key/door/window at the inquest, how come we're confused about it today?

LEANNE

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

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.