The broken window

[DJA]

The sequence of events is not clear.
We are told that no-one entered the room until 1:30, when Arnold arrived.
We are also told that Barnet was interviewed, but we do not know when this was. Obviously, Barnet told the police of the method to gain entry through the window, but was this after they had broken in?

Abberline agree's it was easy to gain access that way, but this does not mean he knew about that before Arnold arrived and gave the order to break in. Abberline could have learned this after the interview with Barnet in the afternoon, then pushed the broken door back closed and reached through the window to test what Barnet had told him.
But this was after the door had been forced.

Like I said, if we had a good timeline all these questions might go away.

We do have a timeline.

It is the report of the Inquest.

A 13 year old would take less than five minutes to figure out how to get in.....reach less than 24 inches through the window,if indeed the door was even locked.

What were the police doing.....playing hopscotch!

Barnett was not there to be interviewed.

[David Orsam]

Morning David
Yes,Beck and Abberline were acting under orders... That does mean that someone above them gave that order,someone who knew there were no available bloodhounds. I'm surprised you can't see this

Hi packers stem,

Are you seriously telling me you can't conceive of a scenario whereby orders were given by Sir Charles Warren for his officers to wait for bloodhounds following the next murder, at a time when it was believed that bloodhounds would be available, but that the situation then changed (i.e. because the Metropolitan Police was not prepared to agree the required payment terms and the dog owner took his dogs home)?

For you to make out the conspiracy theory that you seem to love, you have to show that Sir Charles Warren was told that the bloodhounds had been taken out of London and would not been available for any future murder but deliberately decided not to countermand his earlier order. Then you have to explain what Sir Charles, or anyone in authority, had to gain from a two hour delay in officers accessing the next murder scene.

Mary Jane Kelly was just as dead at 1:30pm as she was at 11:30am. What possible advantage or disadvantage was there for those in charge of the Metropolitan Police - or indeed anyone (including the murderer) - from the two hour delay?

[Wickerman]

The police had been there for two hours with the landlord and his rent collector was questioned.

They knew it was only a matter of reaching in.

The sequence of events is not clear.
We are told that no-one entered the room until 1:30, when Arnold arrived.
We are also told that Barnet was interviewed, but we do not know when this was. Obviously, Barnet told the police of the method to gain entry through the window, but was this after they had broken in?

Abberline agree's it was easy to gain access that way, but this does not mean he knew about that before Arnold arrived and gave the order to break in. Abberline could have learned this after the interview with Barnet in the afternoon, then pushed the broken door back closed and reached through the window to test what Barnet had told him.
But this was after the door had been forced.

Like I said, if we had a good timeline all these questions might go away.

[packers stem]

Hello Packers

No, the window was definitely broken in a quarrel. Besides, why break two?

C4

Definitely?? Why?

[curious4]

And then there is still the apparent time difference: "for some time" and "for a few weeks". Don't think the window had been broken for too long, it was getting cold, but she hadn't got round to stuffing newspaper in the broken windows.

Cheers
C4

[curious4]

Hello Packers

No, the window was definitely broken in a quarrel. Besides, why break two?

C4

[packers stem]

It would be quite a coincidence that she broke the window in a drunken rage at exactly the same time they lost the key

Wouldn't it just C4
But breaking a window deliberately in order to gain entry happens every day....

[curious4]

Morning C4
Think Bowyer said there was blood on the window but it's not clear where...could just mean smudges on the glass rather than if someone had cut themself on jagged edges

Morning Packers

There was a theory that the killer had left via the window. The key had been missing "for some time" and the window broken "a few weeks". "For some time" reads to me longer than a few weeks. It would be quite a coincidence that she broke the window in a drunken rage at exactly the same time they lost the key. If the window could be lifted up (not latched), the killer could have entered/exited that way.

Best wishes
C4

[packers stem]

Wasn't there blood on the window? Considering what was inside the room, that would perhaps be off-putting.

I have wondered whether "putting a hand through the window" could have meant raising the window, and people assuming that it meant putting a hand through the broken window. Not a really sensible thing to do, that, daily putting your hand through broken glass, especially when squiffy.

Best wishes
C4
Sorry, duplicate post, not really awake yet!

Morning C4
Think Bowyer said there was blood on the window but it's not clear where...could just mean smudges on the glass rather than if someone had cut themself on jagged edges

[curious4]

Wasn't there blood on the window? Considering what was inside the room, that would perhaps be off-putting.

I have wondered whether "putting a hand through the window" could have meant raising the window, and people assuming that it meant putting a hand through the broken window. Not a really sensible thing to do, that, daily putting your hand through broken glass, especially when squiffy.

Best wishes
C4
Sorry, duplicate post, not really awake yet!

[DJA]

The police had been there for two hours with the landlord and his rent collector was questioned.

They knew it was only a matter of reaching in.

Probably only 7 or 8 different keys maximum for that lock.
McCarthy would have known that,if the police didn't.

Abberline's weasel words used in the inquest wouldn't even allow you a Wikipedia entry.

[packers stem]

I know that Phil. It's an internet forum where people can post speculative conspiratorial nonsense to their heart's content without any need to worry about actual evidence or whether what they are saying makes any sense at all.

What happened that morning is that Inspector Abberline believed his orders were not to disturb the crime scene so that the bloodhounds could pick up the scent of the murderer. He was told the bloodhounds had been sent for and understood they were on their way (probably because Inspector Beck had been told that someone was attempting to arrange for this to happen as soon as possible) but no-one the ground knew that the bloodhounds were not, in fact, available.

It baffles me as to why anyone thinks that there was any advantage to the police in waiting two hours before entering Kelly's room. What possible difference could it have made whether they went in at 11:30am or 1:30pm considering that all conditions in the room were the exactly same? Had Abberline entered the room at 11:30am I have no doubt that someone today would be saying that he did so deliberately to put the bloodhounds off the scent (because he couldn't possibly have known that the bloodhounds weren't coming)!!!

The failure of the police to enter via the broken window is irrelevant because it wasn't the reason for their not entering the room until 1:30pm and delayed them by a few seconds at most. What possible advantage was there to them in knocking the door down if they didn't have to? Are you saying they were getting kickbacks from local door repairers????

This whole line of enquiry is madness. It's obvious that the reason they knocked down the door was because they did not believe there was any other way of entering the premises. It's so very easy in hindsight in 2015 for you sitting at your computer, having read all the documents in the case, including newspaper reports from after 9 November (such as the one that Simon Wood referred to), to say "why didn't they do this?" and "why didn't they do that" but they did not have perfect knowledge of everything and did what they thought was best at the time.

Any other interpretation of the events of that morning at least needs some kind of evidence to support it.

Morning David
Yes,Beck and Abberline were acting under orders... That does mean that someone above them gave that order,someone who knew there were no available bloodhounds. I'm surprised you can't see this.Any conspiracy or cover up is totally dependent on enough people willing to see nothing but normality.I am sure there as many people out there who will swear that conspiracies have never existed at any time,some people will even believe every word a politician says.. Some of us doubt and question certain words and actions.
I think the truth is probably somewhere Inbetween

[Phil Carter]

Absolutely,and almost certainly have a spare key

Quite. And nobody saw any key on the inside of the door in the lock whilst peering through the windows. Just like nobody saw the door barricaded up with a chair etc. ( given the list of items in the room..table etc...It isn't possible given where the known items were.)

Umm. ....when the door was broken open..was it not to make a hole to reach in and open the door?



Phil

[curious4]

Wasn't there blood on the window? Considering what was inside the room, that would perhaps be off-putting.

I have wondered whether "putting a hand through the window" could have meant raising the window, and people assuming that it meant putting a hand through the broken window. Not a really sensible thing to do, that, daily putting your hand through broken glass, especially when squiffy.

Best wishes
C4

[packers stem]

Hello Robert,

Exactly. And Ye Olde Landlord would know exactly what type of lock there was on the door. No?


Phil

Absolutely,and almost certainly have a spare key