Jack had to slip up

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Even easier take Kellys key some time earlier, be aware that she has not got hold of a new one, and enter through her door at the chosen moment, no fumbling through a hole in a window needed.
Although i should add if this was the case then i doubt if her killer was all that familiar with the workings of a spring lock otherwise why lock the door upon leaving if just closing it secure would have sufficed .
That would leave out Barnett. but not possibly any other regular admirer. or ex?
Regards Richard.

[paul emmett]

Hi, Ben.

I know the proximity to the window has been discussed in the past, and there are issues of noise waking the resident, but all that aside, our stranger wouldn't have known who the resident was. Hell, it could have been JTR.

I also have one last last question about the door. Some sources at the time said Bowyer looked through the keyhole and found that the key was missing. I assume that that ain't so, but it does suggest that people then, when inside, left their key in the keyhole. How does that impact on a potential window entry?

Hi, Chava.

Why do you think Prater barricaded?

Hi, Richard.

If he did have a key and did use it, then THAT would force the police to break the door down, and keep others from using the window trick to get in. But wouldn't that also make Abberline a liar?

[Chava]

Paul, I haven't a clue. Could be her lock didn't work. But she didn't make much out of it, so it may have been something she did every night. Maybe they'd had break-ins. It's one of those small things that probably mean nothing. But I would have loved to ask her about it. In a newspaper account she seems to say she was quite close to Kelly, but that could have been after-the-fact attention seeking.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Paul,
The most obvious scenerio that presented itself on that overcast morning, down that dingy court, was the room known as 13 was locked, and entry could not be obtained from either inside or out without a key or forced entry, the latter being the only solution.
The above reasoning appears logical.
It beggars belief that Mjk and her common law could work out a way of entering the room without a key , yet H division assisted by the landlord of the property could not.
If the key was taken by the killer, either some time in the past, or at the scene itself, it would pose two questions.
Was this murder premeditated?
Why did Kelly lie, or Barnett lie when addressing the missing key.?
Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Chava,

Sam, it's not the stone age either. In uncomfy unmodern 19th Century Whitechape I believe it would have been even more essential for a landlord to have a key to his premises than it would be now.

McCarthy hadn't long been the lessee of Miller's Court, which had been used as dwellings for near-poverty class residents for at least 37 years. I shouldn't be surprised if Kelly's door had been there all that time if not for longer, any spare key may long-since have been lost.

Even if such a key existed - as I've already pointed out - there are plenty of innocent reasons why McCarthy might not have been able to produce it, without having to entertain suspicions that he "knew something" or that he was somehow complicitous in Kelly's murder.

[paul emmett]

Hi, Richard.

I fear we are in the minority, but I do think that that IS the most logical reasoning--kinda. What bothers me is not your 2 questions--which some would anwer in one shot by saying Barnett done it. What bothers me is the Abberline question. If you are right, then Abberline had to know that a key had been used to lock the door. Why would he quote Barnett's we just reached through the window story at the inquest AND agree with it. It was quite simple!??

Hi, Ben. Regarding our discussion, if a hypothetical stranger can figure out the window trick just passing by in the night, why CAN'T all them police folks figure it out in broad daylight?

[anna]

Hi all, most obvious idea must be that the occupant before Kelly was a male who had kept his key and left when McCarthy took over.Could simply let himself in while Kelly was asleep,do the deed,maybe he'd been watching Kelly and knew the window trick,meant to use it so everything seemed correct,but locked the door by mistake out of habit?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Paul,
If common sense prevails then a key was obviously used by whoever killed mjk, any suggestion that the door was only on a spring lock and the police and landlord failed to realize that the hole in the window gave a access to the lock is simply not on....
Why the police did not reveal that a key was used at the inquest is strange, and to go along with the assumption that opening the door was a simple manouver would be to discredit the mentality of its own division would it not?
The question therefore is Who had access to her room, is a modern day suspect, and broke the window which enabled access to room 13 without the use of a key.?
The window breakage enabled the couple to enter the house even if securing the door, and the person who stole the key especially if living there ,to obtain entrance at that time without admitting they had a key.
How convenient..
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Anna,
The locking of the door in error is a most intresting point, and bias as i may be adds fuel to 'Barnett did it'
Fancy planning the breakage to the window, educating Mary on how to still gain access without the use of a key, finding out that Mjk was to be alone on the 8th/9th november, committing the act with nightime alibi supplied, and then walking away from the scene with one 'Schoolboy error'
Whoops..
Seriously Good point.Anna.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

What bothers me is the Abberline question. If you are right, then Abberline had to know that a key had been used to lock the door.

Why did he "have to know"? It was a door, was it not? Doors have locks, and if turning the handle didn't work it was natural to surmise that it had been locked.

Why would he quote Barnett's we just reached through the window story at the inquest AND agree with it.

Simply because that's what Barnett told him.

I struggle to find any mystery in all of this.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sam,
I can see your logic, this was 1888, the police had before them a room occupied by a disfigured corpse obviously the work of the fiend they had been searching for since August.
The police presence was evident from around 11am, and a wait of around two hours was needed before a decision to enter the room was given.
The shocked officers present would then order entry to the room, and the quickest way may have been to prise it open with a pick axe,
If this was the police action, it shows a distinct lack of brain power, when they had a full two hours to realize a quick mode of entry that did not involve damaging the door to the room and having to repair the damage before leaving the scene, which would involve boarding of the windows and a refitted lock/catch.
This may have well have been the case, if they were the Keystone cops...
Regards Richard.

[paul emmett]

Hi, Sam. Your comment on my quote did not consider the context. I had said that if a key had been used, Abberline must have known that Barnett's story about the window could not have explained away the key. And I too think that unless the Cops were Keystone, they had to have tried the window trick. Indeed, it has been asserted on this thread earlier that a stranger passing in the night could figure out the window trick, certianly the cops could in broad daylight.

I then, in turn, struggle to see why you struggle for mystery.

[paul emmett]

Why the police did not reveal that a key was used at the inquest is strange, and to go along with the assumption that opening the door was a simple manouver would be to discredit the mentality of its own division would it not?
The question therefore is Who had access to her room, is a modern day suspect, and broke the window which enabled access to room 13 without the use of a key.?

Hi, Richard. I'd said the same thing on another thread. Abberline discredits the police. And I do think your questions are important, but I don't think that the second point follows the first. I, that is, question your "therefore." Unless the whole thing is dark to the max. My relatively vanilla/weak excuse for Abberline is that perhaps he was trying to dispell the fears that JTR was now running about with keys to rooms. "He's moving inside, and he's coming after us." I'd like to know what you think. Why would A aid B?

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Sam, I did get your thread point and it was fair as usual . Ben is still "the man" when it comes to the spring lock as well.....

McCarthy need not have a key at all, in fact, if he was aggressively seeking some compensation for Marys arrears when he sends Bowyer, he likely would have sent him with a spare key, in case Mary was still passed out from a night of "work". The fact Barnett and Mary used a broken pane to access their lock for the past few weeks indicates that they A, they couldnt afford to get McCarthy to cut another...B, they asked, but McCarthy did not have a spare to give them as a replacement, and C, they never mentioned it to McCarthy hoping he wouldnt know about a lost key and the 2 broken window panes they couldnt afford to replace.

Since some great research by Sam and others has revealed that our Mr McCarthy was quite the slumlord, with many properties, I personally don't think he either cared about the arrears much, or visited that courtyard himself very often. Which leads me to believe they could have come to him and asked for a new key..... he would not know at that time how they accessed the room without it, and he advised them they would have to cough up for it...and maybe with some back rent too.

He is aware of how they entered when he is interviewed Nov 9th by the police though, ....(Sam, your birthday was Nov 9th for real?...odd coincidence... ...so my thinking is he had spoken to Mary or Barnett about how they were doing without a key after their initial request for a replacement.

I see no reason to assume the relationship between McCarthy and Mary and Barnett to be hostile even while behind in the rent, as it appears they had been allowed to continually add to a debt instead of first clearing up the prior one. I think it was a case of ....'ere Sir, its all we 'ave to give you this week, but things have been looking up for us so we'll make it right with you soon. Then they went drinking.

Thats my guess.

My best regards all.

[richardnunweek]

Hi all,
The frustrating aspect of the 'Ripper case' is having to put foreward the common sense approach when the actual reports are not in line with modern day intelligence.
Of course the police may simply have smashed the door in and worried about the repair needed to secure the crime scene after the body had been removed ... it would appear that this was the case if the day time events have been recoreded correctly,
It would appear that they spent around four hours interviewing one J Barnett and satisfying themselves that he had no signs of blood on his person . and a alibi for the night, released him , even though they had a witness that blowed any night alibi out of the window that being Mrs Maxwells report.
They although originally took the observations of George hutchinson with utmost urgency, soon rejected him because it appeared that she was seen alive hours after Astracans sighting.
To sum up the police of that period, and the detection methods avaliable at the time were powerless to convict anyone unless caught in the act or admitted responsibility to the crime..
Modern day detectives would have our Jack in custody for sure once they had understood his routine.
Regards Richard.