The broken window

[David Orsam]

Rosella and Abby, I agree entirely. The flaws in Phil's 'logical positivism' are (a) the inappropriate use of hindsight (b) a misguided belief that the police were completely stupid and (c) a misunderstanding of the situation faced by them at the time.

When the police turned up at Miller's Court they found a locked door. They hadn't yet spoken to Barnett so they didn't know there was some sort of technique (whether difficult or simple) by which the door could be opened through the window nor, frankly, did they care. They had a perfectly quick and easy way of effecting entry with an axe. There was no need for them to spend any time theorising and speculating about other ways of getting into the room. If they had spent even a few minutes faffing around trying to open the door through the broken window – or working out how to do so - we might today be asking; why didn't they just use an axe on the door??!!!

[David Orsam]

Hi Abby
They had a couple of hours along with the landlord to work this out though...

They didn't need to work anything out. They had an axe!

[packers stem]

could it simply be that the police didn't know about the hand through the window to unlock the door trick?

Hi Abby
They had a couple of hours along with the landlord to work this out though...

[packers stem]

More and more evidence is pointing towards the monkey theory...

http://www.wikigallery.org/wiki/painting_147711/Daniel-Urrabieta-Vierge/Illustration-for-The-Murders-in-the-Rue-Morgue-by-Edgar-Allan-Poe-1809-49-engraved-by-Eugene-Michel-Abot-1836-94

Regards Pierre

At least we now know why you didn't want to say much about your data before Pierre
I do think you'll find it probably wasn't a monkey... No matter what the data says

[Pierre]

^ As I said before on a previous post, to reach that door from the broken pane furthest away from the door, a human would need arms the length of a gorilla, reaching down past the knees, and even then it would have been a stretch.

Just look at the photo of Mary's room taken from Millers Court, look at the distance between window and door and tell me how it could have been done!

It was said in answer to that post that some sort of iron bar arrangement was supposedly used by Mary and friends when they wanted to unlock the door from the outside at that angle.

Is that so, and even if they did would the police or McCarthy even have known about that? With McCarthy saying the key was lost maybe the police felt they had no option but to use the axe!

More and more evidence is pointing towards the monkey theory...

http://www.wikigallery.org/wiki/painting_147711/Daniel-Urrabieta-Vierge/Illustration-for-The-Murders-in-the-Rue-Morgue-by-Edgar-Allan-Poe-1809-49-engraved-by-Eugene-Michel-Abot-1836-94

Regards Pierre

[Abby Normal]

could it simply be that the police didn't know about the hand through the window to unlock the door trick?

[Pcdunn]

Determing an abortion?

The thing is Simon, all you do is shoot yourself in the foot. If their qualifications were so all encompassing then what was Dr Dukes doing there?

Dukes, incidentally, was a Fellow of the London Obstetrical Society which may or may not be relevant.

Could all these doctors with experience in ailing and pregnant women have been there to determine if the corpse had been the victim of a mad abortionist? (Not that she was, of course, but it might well be the first thing to occur to them.)

[Rosella]

^ As I said before on a previous post, to reach that door from the broken pane furthest away from the door, a human would need arms the length of a gorilla, reaching down past the knees, and even then it would have been a stretch.

Just look at the photo of Mary's room taken from Millers Court, look at the distance between window and door and tell me how it could have been done!

It was said in answer to that post that some sort of iron bar arrangement was supposedly used by Mary and friends when they wanted to unlock the door from the outside at that angle.

Is that so, and even if they did would the police or McCarthy even have known about that? With McCarthy saying the key was lost maybe the police felt they had no option but to use the axe!

[David Orsam]

Dear David,

You don't understand my thinking. I have heard this. .or seen it, attributed to many. .not just me on here..but on we go...to a simple lesson in positive logicalism.

One doesn't need to "faff about" as you so quaintly express it. It is a broken window pane. Broken enough to ALREADY be the known method of entry...without a key.

It is logical to assume therefore that the window pane is already so broken..that an arm can get through it to reach the lock. Ipso facto, the only "faffing about" is to knock any remaining pieces of glass out. Making entry safer..If need be. It would take no more than 5 secs.
No such things as fingerprints to worry about...just a couple of strategic taps...if need be..reach in and hey presto..One opened door. Positive logicalism in a nutshell.

Not that simple for Captain Beaky and his band. Use an axe on the door. But first. .go find an axe.

Quite simple for most grown ups to understand.
They use such thoughts in the Army you know..solve problems the easy way..With less effort, time and resource used. Positive logicalism.

Now..you will excuse me but I am currently exploring something else of more pressing interest. .and cannot answer your queries further. You have the answer asked for.... have a jolly good time with it. I will not answer further.
So chasing me for a follow up will be pointless. Find someone else to play with.. .there's a good fellow. ☺

Thanks for the lesson in 'positive logicalism' Phil, much appreciated.

But here's the thing. The police had two whole hours to get hold of an axe, if they didn't have one already, while they waited (in vain) for the bloodhounds to arrive.

So if we assume that, at 1.30pm, they had an axe then, as you say, five seconds to knock out the glass in the window - assuming they knew they could unlock the door from the inside, and were then able to put their hand round and simply and easily unlock the door - and, bingo, they are in.....but, also, let's say five seconds to smash the door open with the axe.

So five seconds to go through the window, five seconds to smash the door with an axe. Doesn't that logically mean that, in terms of effort, time and resource, there is no difference which option they chose? Other than a damaged door. So is it the door you are concerned about? Is that your whole point?

Oh yes, you said you are not going to answer me, so let's just call that a rhetorical question.

[Phil Carter]

Getting back to the window, I simply don't understand your thinking on this Phil.

Why faff about trying to remove the broken pane when effecting entry with an axe was both quick and simple? Probably quicker than any other method in fact.

What did it matter if the cheap door to Kelly's room was damaged or destroyed? The police wanted to get into the room and they did so.

Dear David,

You don't understand my thinking. I have heard this. .or seen it, attributed to many. .not just me on here..but on we go...to a simple lesson in positive logicalism.

One doesn't need to "faff about" as you so quaintly express it. It is a broken window pane. Broken enough to ALREADY be the known method of entry...without a key.

It is logical to assume therefore that the window pane is already so broken..that an arm can get through it to reach the lock. Ipso facto, the only "faffing about" is to knock any remaining pieces of glass out. Making entry safer..If need be. It would take no more than 5 secs.
No such things as fingerprints to worry about...just a couple of strategic taps...if need be..reach in and hey presto..One opened door. Positive logicalism in a nutshell.

Not that simple for Captain Beaky and his band. Use an axe on the door. But first. .go find an axe.

Quite simple for most grown ups to understand.
They use such thoughts in the Army you know..solve problems the easy way..With less effort, time and resource used. Positive logicalism.

Now..you will excuse me but I am currently exploring something else of more pressing interest. .and cannot answer your queries further. You have the answer asked for.... have a jolly good time with it. I will not answer further.
So chasing me for a follow up will be pointless. Find someone else to play with.. .there's a good fellow. ☺



Phil

[David Orsam]

And here is another couple of observations.

The landlord was present. He knew about the window.
He would also know what to type of lock the door had.
There is a possibility that the landlord would have an extra key.

So..If the idea of entering the place via an axe of sorts is used..It is very simple to imagine that the hole the axe made would be for reaching in and unlocking the door.

I ask again. If that were the purpose of gaining entry, however long they had waited..why not simply take out the rest of the broken pane of glass instead?

No need for an axe. No need for the door to be destroyed either.

I know I'm not a qualified policeman... but this isn't rocket science.

Yet nobody..not one person of the very many...thought of it.
And guess what. .I thought of that over four decades ago when I first read about the murder in Millers Court.

Please tell me this is quite normal, practical thinking?
All before the age of the Internet, please note.

Phil

Getting back to the window, I simply don't understand your thinking on this Phil.

Why faff about trying to remove the broken pane when effecting entry with an axe was both quick and simple? Probably quicker than any other method in fact.

What did it matter if the cheap door to Kelly's room was damaged or destroyed? The police wanted to get into the room and they did so.

[David Orsam]

Do carry on with your other possibilities re Dr. Gabe, and his presence at Millers Court. I look forward to hearing them all.☺

Rather than continue in this thread, which is supposed to be about the broken window, I will start a new thread about Gabe and make all the possibilities clear but Simon has suggested I read the Ornella Moscucci book, so I suppose I had better do that first.

[David Orsam]

A 'so called' file about a Dr.T, be it a file, a large one or a massive one

There is no file about Dr T in existence at all. As the latest post by Robert in the 'I am a British suspect' thread has made clear, the Tumblety correspondence I found from the years 1865 to 1876 came from a number of Foreign Office files relating to U.S. and Claims Commission matters.

[Phil Carter]

There is no 'massive file on Tumblety', Phil, nor a 'so called' one.

A 'so called' file about a Dr.T, be it a file, a large one or a massive one, could easily have been about a Dr. Tanner, who as you know was being looked at by SB at the same time btw. Apologies for the side track. Do carry on with your other possibilities re Dr. Gabe, and his presence at Millers Court. I look forward to hearing them all.☺



Phil

[David Orsam]

Perhaps Dr. Gabe was one involved somehow in that so called massive file on Tumblety too in years past?

There is no 'massive file on Tumblety', Phil, nor a 'so called' one.