The door, the key and the pickaxe

[Michael W Richards]

I was addressing comments like this -- "So what were they really up to then?" Maybe I am reading too much into it but it does seem to imply something suspicious on the part of the police. And to expand on that thought I see it in questions like" why didn't Schwartz testify at the inquest? What happened to the cart and pony? Why are witness times different in the Stride case? Was it actually Mary Kelly that Barnett identified etc.

Again, maybe it is just me but there seems to be a mind set among some who post that any unanswered question or unexplained action are by their very nature suspicious.

c.d.

Mary Kelly was discovered murdered around 11:00. The room, we are told, remained sealed until the physician came...till around 1:30, at which time it was forcibly opened. Which means that the police had around 2 1/2 hours to speak to McCarthy about how to enter the room, about 2 1/2 hours to examine the premises and discover the latch could be accessed via the window, as Barnett told them. So why damage the door to enter?

and...precisely when were the pictures taken? Before the medical examination? Does that mean people stood around for 2 1/2 hours until the medical experts arrived and when the medical experts finally arrived they let the photographer in first? Seems to me the best time to take images is when the room is restricted to entry by others. Would they make the doctors wait? Would they make the photographer wait until the doctors were there and needed access to the room. Or did the photographer take the pictures after the examination in the room, which would make changes to the physical crime scene possible. For example, was Marys left arm hanging over the side of the bed when they first saw her, and after the examination it was then placed across her empty abdomen for the picture?

There are things that are not known. Within the unknown are a myriad of possibilities, including the notion that one or more persons withheld information intentionally, accidentally, or just a moment of forgetfulness. That can constitute conspiracy. That dreaded word by so many who naively believe whatever they are told.

[c.d.]

There are things that are not known. Within the unknown are a myriad of possibilities, including the notion that one or more persons withheld information intentionally, accidentally, or just a moment of forgetfulness. That can constitute conspiracy. That dreaded word by so many who naively believe whatever they are told.

I agree completely. A conspiracy is certainly within the myriad of possibilities. What I object to is when it becomes an if A then B argument. Simply show that questions exist or something doesn't quite add up and immediately conclude that it therefore had to be a conspiracy.

But then again I naively believe everything I am told.

c.d.

[mpriestnall]

Mary Kelly was discovered murdered around 11:00. The room, we are told, remained sealed until the physician came...till around 1:30, at which time it was forcibly opened. Which means that the police had around 2 1/2 hours to speak to McCarthy about how to enter the room, about 2 1/2 hours to examine the premises and discover the latch could be accessed via the window, as Barnett told them. So why damage the door to enter?

and...precisely when were the pictures taken? Before the medical examination? Does that mean people stood around for 2 1/2 hours until the medical experts arrived and when the medical experts finally arrived they let the photographer in first? Seems to me the best time to take images is when the room is restricted to entry by others. Would they make the doctors wait? Would they make the photographer wait until the doctors were there and needed access to the room. Or did the photographer take the pictures after the examination in the room, which would make changes to the physical crime scene possible. For example, was Marys left arm hanging over the side of the bed when they first saw her, and after the examination it was then placed across her empty abdomen for the picture?

There are things that are not known. Within the unknown are a myriad of possibilities, including the notion that one or more persons withheld information intentionally, accidentally, or just a moment of forgetfulness. That can constitute conspiracy. That dreaded word by so many who naively believe whatever they are told.

Good point about the time the police had time to learn how they could open the door without forcing it from McCarthy or other Miller's Court cohorts eg Bowyer. Curious.

[Varqm]

Varqm, Don't suppose you have the source for that (The police submitted Schwartz's statement to the Coroner.).
I'm not questioning you, I just would like to research that.

Not probs if that's not to hand.

Cheers, anyway.

Warren to HO, "upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name "Lipski"....

which basically implied his statement was submitted, at least.

[mpriestnall]

Warren to HO, "upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name "Lipski"....

which basically implied his statement was submitted, at least.

OK, thanks.

[Wickerman]

Warren to HO, "upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name "Lipski"....

which basically implied his statement was submitted, at least.

You may have noticed, Warren's claim is dated 6th Nov., but Anderson had made the same claim the day before - 5th Nov. in a draft letter (The Ultimate - pg.127 (first edition, HDBK)

[Varqm]

You may have noticed, Warren's claim is dated 6th Nov., but Anderson had made the same claim the day before - 5th Nov. in a draft letter (The Ultimate - pg.127 (first edition, HDBK)

Yeah. Warren's was official,

[Simon Wood]

If you're presenting the world with a locked-room mystery, the only solution is to break down the door.

[mpriestnall]

If you're presenting the world with a locked-room mystery, the only solution is to break down the door.

I don' believe the waiting for the bloodhounds was genuine, but a tactic to gain time to ascertain something or a disguised means to allow something to happen.

It's my belief the Miller's Court event was a misdirection event, the purpose of which was for Jack/Astrakhan to spirit Kelly away, while leaving behind a replacement victim. Dr Phillips and the boss cops knew this and assisted them in this deception. The waiting for non-exsistent, non-viable dogs, was to gain time to confirm the identity of the victim (suspecting it wasn't Kelly). or to delay/prevent the honest cops on the ground (eg Abberline) from discovering this victim swap. Or to allow Kelly to leave the area. Anyway something along these lines.

Perhaps the unnecessary axing of the door was a part of the same charade?

[mpriestnall]

Good questions, to which I am afraid I don't know the answers!!!

I'm pretty confident that the police would have been aware of the limitations of using blood hounds in such an overcrowded and scent-laden area, but perhaps with little else to go on, it was a straw worth clutching at?!

Or perhaps it fulfilled a need to be seen by the public as doing SOMETHING / trying out new things, even if the actual chance of success was negligible?

I'm sure that I recall suspicions being raised somewhere regarding the delay in entering Millers Court / wait for bloodhounds who were likely already frolicking happily on Scarborough beach, although I can't for the life of me remember whether that was in a Casebook thread or in a book which I read.

It does seem somewhat remiss that word of the departure of the dogs had not filtered down to the officers on the frontline.

What are you thinking, Martyn?

The delay was manufactured to allow time for more senior officers to be present at the scene to "direct proceedings in a prescribed direction"?

Obfuscation re TOD?

Hi MsDiddles.

Please see my post #39 above for my (admittedly vague) thoughts on the dogs and the axing of the door.

.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi MsDiddles.

Please see my post #39 above for my (admittedly vague) thoughts on the dogs and the axing of the door.

.

That's food for thought!

Am just trying to wrap my head around all the possible implications and ramifications of this....

That can take me a while!!!!

[mpriestnall]

That's food for thought!

Am just trying to wrap my head around all the possible implications and ramifications of this....

That can take me a while!!!!

Looking forward to your thoughts re post #39 or any other ideas re the dogs and the forced door entry.

[Ms Diddles]

Looking forward to your thoughts re post #39 or any other ideas re the dogs and the forced door entry.

I will mull it over for sure!

Maybe one for the Crutched Friar?

[C. F. Leon]

"Here's Johnny"...

That's the image the situation is presented as and everyone thinks of- JM bashing the door in. But a more likely scenario was posited on one of the Rippercast episodes. A pickaxe has TWO sides, and McCarthy probably used the OTHER end as a crowbar to force the lock, which was broken anyway. Easier and less expensive to replace the lock and perhaps repair the frame than the whole bloody door. Has ANYONE ever thought of asking a carpenter how they would do it?

No great mystery as to how Jack got through EITHER way- Kelly let him in and it was probably one of those self-latching locks on the inside, so when Jack left he just opened the door and it automatically locked when he closed the door. The odd thing is that this sort of lock would have been REALLY common, but apparently when it WAS decided to fo in, no one seems to have THOUGHT of reaching in and unlatching the door. Or perhaps someone did, but the broken pane wasn't large enough for anyone there to reach in without injury from the broken glass. Or perhaps Barnett just doesn't mention the "grabber' that they used.

The bloodhounds EXISTED, they just were unavailable.

[mpriestnall]

I will mull it over for sure!

Maybe one for the Crutched Friar?

Sure and sure.