The broken window

[Phil Carter]

Morning Phil
I agree.Seems to me would have to be taken with midday sun in June/July
Think the 'recognised it instantly' is about Rumbelows discovery of MJK1 though,nothing to do with this

Morning packers stem,

I bow to your better knowledge re the "recognised it instantly" bit. Thank you.
I agree re time of day assessment.


Phil

[David Orsam]

This is not a court room.

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.

[Phil Carter]

As for the lock, what sort of lock was it? Because the board is right - the bright idea of reaching thru the window must have dawned on one person. Only way i see the door being knocked in is, if the door is door is locked inside. We already know the door must lock when its closed or else she wouldnt have to use the window or a key.

Hello Robert,

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


Phil

[packers stem]

Re. The photo of the window.

When Donald Rumblelow found this photo..amongst others unconnected. . (It's on one of the dissertations on Casebook I recall) ... He "recognised it straight away" as being from 13 Millers Court.

At no time was it stated that that photo was taken at the time..or day of the murder.
It may have been taken the next day..so few days later..A week later. No date is given.

Also..although I accept it to be from 13 Millers Court, it has to be said that unless the courtyard and windows setting of the building is totally unique in London, we cannot rule out the possibility it is of another address.

The chances of another window in another similar building on a different day being broken etc are slim..so we accept, reasonably, it is a photo of the back wall of 13 Millers Court.

However. When the photo was taken is uncertain. Given the absence of anyone in the photo...It looks to have been taken when all was quiet and the photographer could do it in peace and quiet.



Phil

Morning Phil
I agree.Seems to me would have to be taken with midday sun in June/July
Think the 'recognised it instantly' is about Rumbelows discovery of MJK1 though,nothing to do with this

[packers stem]

The outside street shot (the one with the chair sat by the passage), wasn't that taken by Leonard Matters, just before demolition?
Anyhow, that photo was from a private collection, the backyard photo came from a police source I think.

Morning Wickerman
The late 80s package is a dodgy source.We can't take from that that the photo was taken on the day.I stand by the angle of the shadows in that they couldn't be reproduced in November in the northern hemisphere without artificial light

The upper half of the lower right pane looks broken to me, its a lighter shade of grey, which means in reality it was darker.

Just don't see it. I see the top right one with clear jagged/sharp edges and 3 identical ones.I maintain that anyone with common sense having to stick their arm through the upper one to open the door would have cleaned it up.Besides we know that of the two lower panes,the one that was broken at the time was the 'furthest' from Bowyers testimony. So the left one as we're looking

I think it was Bob Hinton who used the physical dimensions of a typical house brick from the period, coupled with the typical cement line, and recreated a mock-up of the window and door in relative distance, to see if the lock was reachable.
I think the thread is archived somewhere.

I did the same but using AutoCad back around 2000 or thereabouts. I drew a three-dimensional scale model based on the same house brick as Bob used.

The upper-half of the lower right window had to be broken out to satisfy the claim made by Barnet, and that is what we see in that photo (sorry you find it difficult to distinguish).

Don't worry about it,I can see clear evidence in MJK1 that others are struggling to spot but even I can't see this

[Phil Carter]

Re. The photo of the window.

When Donald Rumblelow found this photo..amongst others unconnected. . (It's on one of the dissertations on Casebook I recall) ... He "recognised it straight away" as being from 13 Millers Court.

At no time was it stated that that photo was taken at the time..or day of the murder.
It may have been taken the next day..so few days later..A week later. No date is given.

Also..although I accept it to be from 13 Millers Court, it has to be said that unless the courtyard and windows setting of the building is totally unique in London, we cannot rule out the possibility it is of another address.

The chances of another window in another similar building on a different day being broken etc are slim..so we accept, reasonably, it is a photo of the back wall of 13 Millers Court.

However. When the photo was taken is uncertain. Given the absence of anyone in the photo...It looks to have been taken when all was quiet and the photographer could do it in peace and quiet.



Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil, unless you can demonstrate that Inspectors Abberline and Beck both knew that the bloodhounds had been removed from London, and that they were aware that any previous orders issued by Sir Charles Warren about the use of bloodhounds had been countermanded, everything you say is no more than piffle and nonsense.

David,

Unless you can demonstrate that they both didn't know that the bloodhounds were nowhere near London, and had not been for two weeks, and they were not aware that any previous orders issued by their boss, the top man, Sir Charles Warren, had not been heard of..(I won't insult your interpretation as "piffle"..I am above that level)

This is not a court room. It is a thread discussing unknown reasons and answers connected to the broken window.

Now..I ask you in all seriousness. Whilst standing around waiting and kicking their heels for these woof woofs to race into London after a two week sojourn...are you seriously suggesting to us all that not one person....amongst all the policemen, doctors, and even the owner of the room himself (the landlord)....he would know EXACTLY how the door opened..and what type of lock it had by the way....didn't think of reaching through the broken window and opening it?

Is it not a truism that opening the door, for Kelly, from the outside, whilst reaching through the broken windows, was easy?

You see. The CENTRE of attention on that cold November morning for couple of hours..on the outside..is the broken window. When the rent collector came around..He banged on said locked door and then stepped around the corner and peered into the room by drawing back the material behind the broken window. He told his boss..who did the same. That person..told the police. .who did the same..who told the doctors..who did the same...and nobody. .not one of them...SAID.."the door has been blocked up from the inside"...so therefore..ipso facto..The way was clear to reach in and open the door. The KEY was absent. .apparently..so THAT wasn't seen on the inside of the door either by anyone...are you seriously suggesting after all this peering and talking and waiting..With the knowing Landlord right bang smack there in attendance..It crossed NOBODY'S mind to open the door through the window?

Seems to me the waiting for the bloodhounds excuse is the thin end of the logical wedge for the general public to accept. But then again..All you are concerned with is bringing the heavily loaded word "conspiracy" to the table to answer the detractors to the blinking obvious.

It has sod all to do with that. It has to do with a scenario that is weak in explanation. .very weak. And a lot of people around here see that. So at some time or the other, someone is going to have to see the possibility that the men in dark blue..or black...aren't always whiter than white with their words and actions surrounding this scene.
That possibility is there. Like it or not.
WHY ...that's another matter. Another question and for another thread. But the possibility is there. And that is why Simon asked the question in the first place. Logic tells us that it seems like stalling for time. The question is why. The bloodhounds reason does not cover it. Sorry.



Phil

[DJA]

"It is quite easy" Abberline at the inquest.

[Robert St Devil]

Pinch poke... Her door must have been like pic 5. Wondering if that left knob went missing. It should have been so easy for the police to slide it left.

[Wickerman]

Here is the archived thread, page down to the bottom to see examples.

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4921/6718.html

[Robert St Devil]

"The lock of the door was a spring one,..."

There is an example in an archived thread, several photographs by Bob Hinton

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4921/6718.html

[Robert St Devil]

According to Elizabeth Prater she would barricade her door with a couple of tables when she was indoors at night and alone.

I remember a statement by a woman on Hanbury St or Bucks Row saying she used chairs(?). I think it was the lady next door to the Nichols murder. Eitherway... lots of locks sold during these months, im sure.

[Wickerman]

As for the lock, what sort of lock was it? Because the board is right - the bright idea of reaching thru the window must have dawned on one person. Only way i see the door being knocked in is, if the door is door is locked inside. We already know the door must lock when its closed or else she wouldnt have to use the window or a key.

"The lock of the door was a spring one,..."

There is an example in an archived thread, several photographs by Bob Hinton.

[Robert St Devil]

As for the lock, what sort of lock was it? Because the board is right - the bright idea of reaching thru the window must have dawned on one person. Only way i see the door being knocked in is, if the door is door is locked inside. We already know the door must lock when its closed or else she wouldnt have to use the window or a key.

[Rosella]

According to Elizabeth Prater she would barricade her door with a couple of tables when she was indoors at night and alone. Probably Mary did the same when she was by herself. However, she was found in a chemise as if she was 'entertaining' a client shortly before her death. If she was, then that points to a client as perp surely, (either Blotchy or Astrakhan Man,) unless she fell asleep after letting them out without bothering to take the usual precautions with the door.