The broken window

[Abby Normal]

You cant imagine how good this question is! Every woman on Dorset St and Whitechapel are barricading their doors because of him, but he just happens to pick the one girl who doesnt. For this, we should be able to eliminate intruder and the prince. How would he have known unless he was walking door to door ha ha. The fact that shes in her chemise and more to the left side of the bed indicates intercourse. Given fact that she took him home for that purpose. Which brings me back to your question. How did the murderer know that Joe Barrett or any other visitors would not walk in and catch him in the act?

or...he was even more close and knew that joe had left earlier and would probably not be back till the morrow...

[Abby Normal]

You cant imagine how good this question is! Every woman on Dorset St and Whitechapel are barricading their doors because of him, but he just happens to pick the one girl who doesnt. For this, we should be able to eliminate intruder and the prince. How would he have known unless he was walking door to door ha ha. The fact that shes in her chemise and more to the left side of the bed indicates intercourse. Given fact that she took him home for that purpose. Which brings me back to your question. How did the murderer know that Joe Barrett or any other visitors would not walk in and catch him in the act?

cause the son of a bitch knew she had just broke up with him and perhaps, why he waited till the court calmed down and her drunk friends were all passed out?

[Robert St Devil]

Does that not point to someone with intimate knowledge of her living arrangements? someone who knew her?

You cant imagine how good this question is! Every woman on Dorset St and Whitechapel are barricading their doors because of him, but he just happens to pick the one girl who doesnt. For this, we should be able to eliminate intruder and the prince. How would he have known unless he was walking door to door ha ha. The fact that shes in her chemise and more to the left side of the bed indicates intercourse. Given fact that she took him home for that purpose. Which brings me back to your question. How did the murderer know that Joe Barrett or any other visitors would not walk in and catch him in the act?

[Wickerman]

Hi Abby.

Not sure if this answers your query, but I have read opinions from people at the time that door locks were installed for personal protection, not to prevent theft.

Landlords rarely provided anything of value in those rooms, so theft was not a concern. The tenant would lock the door when they were in, for their own protection, not when they went out. Which is opposite to what we would take as normal today.

[David Orsam]

There are always alternative explanations David but that doesn't make them correct

I didn't say anything about "alternative explanations". I referred to simple and straightforward explanations.

[Wickerman]

Oh Dear...the dodgy late 80s delivery then,explains it lol
Probably taken just before demolition

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.

I can still only see one broken window, top right but we know the lower left one should be broken but all 3 other panes look identical to me.

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.

On top of that with the way the top right is 'holed' they would have ripped their arms to shreds every time they wanted to open the door. If it was used for access they would surely have removed the edging to make it a 'clean' square...and, Kelly would have probably have had to stand on the window sill to stretch in far enough...Nothing rings true does it?

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).

[Abby Normal]

Forgive my ignorance-but I have several questions regarding the whole locked door thing.

Im befuddled by the fact that apparently there was no key to her room (even by the land lord).
But the window just happened to be broken to allow the little trick to reach the hand through to unlock.

Who would know about this little trick? Mary. Barnett. Hutch?


Does that not point to someone with intimate knowledge of her living arrangements? someone who knew her?

Also, according to cox-wasn't mary and Blotchy entering (or were they only outside her door?)already? meaning she might have the key?

And if she did-why would the killer take it?

[packers stem]

Maybe they did wake them up with the discovery of the bodies. But then again, the discovery of the bodies didn't require any urgent action on the part of the police that night, outside of normal procedure in a murder case. The discovery of the graffiti did, however, require immediate action on the part of the police at a senior level. Keep or remove? Photograph or not? A decision was required by someone with authority to make it.

But this is really all just detail. Questions for which there are very simple and straightforward answers. No need to imagine conspiracies everywhere.

There are always alternative explanations David but that doesn't make them correct
Do you remember in the 80s when the crop circles first started appearing? I remember a scientist on TV doing his best to convince everyone that they were all caused by a wind vortex.I don't know if he had himself ever seen the complexity of these designs but wind vortex???
Thankfully a couple of farmers and a plank of wood came along to rescue us from science
Alternative explanation does not necessarily mean correct explanation

[packers stem]

One Casebook member tried to enhance that backyard photo. I'm not sure if this will come across clear enough but there appears to be three window panes in that smaller right-hand window that are broken. Both bottom panes, and the top right pane.






If I recall, the backyard shot came from a collection of police photo's. Wasn't it located among those photo's of Kelly?
Police crime scene photo's will be dated to the time of the crime.

The press complained that they were not allowed inside the court, and any residents were not allowed out.
I would expect the police would tell them to go home and stay there, so I wouldn't expect to see people around, but you might expect to see a policeman or two, I agree to that.

Oh Dear...the dodgy late 80s delivery then,explains it lol
Probably taken just before demolition
I can still only see one broken window, top right but we know the lower left one should be broken but all 3 other panes look identical to me. On top of that with the way the top right is 'holed' they would have ripped their arms to shreds every time they wanted to open the door. If it was used for access they would surely have removed the edging to make it a 'clean' square...and, Kelly would have probably have had to stand on the window sill to stretch in far enough...Nothing rings true does it?

[David Orsam]

Hi David
Do you think maybe someone should have woke them up with the discovery of two bodies? Or was a scrap of apron and a chalked message of greater importance?

Maybe they did wake them up with the discovery of the bodies. But then again, the discovery of the bodies didn't require any urgent action on the part of the police that night, outside of normal procedure in a murder case. The discovery of the graffiti did, however, require immediate action on the part of the police at a senior level. Keep or remove? Photograph or not? A decision was required by someone with authority to make it.

But this is really all just detail. Questions for which there are very simple and straightforward answers. No need to imagine conspiracies everywhere.

[packers stem]

Do you think, maybe, perhaps, someone could have woken them up?

Hi David
Do you think maybe someone should have woke them up with the discovery of two bodies? Or was a scrap of apron and a chalked message of greater importance?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman
What I'm struggling with is the photo itself really.
There's not a soul in sight.
The sharp angle of shadow suggests midday sun in June
In the UK in November, even at midday you'll do well to get the sun at a 45 degree angle off the horizon, this I know as I can only use a washing line between March and September due to some nearby trees lol
Also only one broken pane is visible.... Where there should be 2

One Casebook member tried to enhance that backyard photo. I'm not sure if this will come across clear enough but there appears to be three window panes in that smaller right-hand window that are broken. Both bottom panes, and the top right pane.

I'm not convinced that this photo wasn't taken well after the event,possibly years and that it is still possible that the window had been removed as the report stated

If I recall, the backyard shot came from a collection of police photo's. Wasn't it located among those photo's of Kelly?
Police crime scene photo's will be dated to the time of the crime.

The press complained that they were not allowed inside the court, and any residents were not allowed out.
I would expect the police would tell them to go home and stay there, so I wouldn't expect to see people around, but you might expect to see a policeman or two, I agree to that.

[David Orsam]

Strikes me as odd that's all for a superintendent and a commissioner to be on duty between 3 and 5 am

Do you think, maybe, perhaps, someone could have woken them up?

[packers stem]

Hi packers stem,

Your question assumes that Arnold did not 'drag himself' to Millers Court as soon as he received the news of the murder. But I don't think we have any evidence about when he received the news or where he was at the time he received it.

It also seems to assume that he was sitting around not doing very much on the day of the Lord Mayor's Procession, just waiting for another murder so he could leap into action.

You mention that he got to Goulston Street 'pretty sharpish'. The graffiti in Goulston Street was discovered by PC Long at about 2:55am and reported by him to an inspector at about 3:10am. If Arnold was on duty at the time and got there within 2 hours, i.e. before 5:10am, it begs the question as to when he got the chance to sleep (so perhaps he slept in the day). I note that the writing was said to have been rubbed out at about 5:30am. If Arnold didn't get there until 5:10am that means it took him two hours to arrive, just like the two hours between 11:30am and 1:30pm

In short, I can't see why you think that the question is of any importance or what you think the answer to it would reveal but then I am baffled by a lot of questions being asked on this forum.

Strikes me as odd that's all for a superintendent and a commissioner to be on duty between 3 and 5 am
The Lord Mayor's parade day I would expect

[David Orsam]

My question would be what was Arnold doing so important that it took him till 1.30 to drag himself there..

Hi packers stem,

Your question assumes that Arnold did not 'drag himself' to Millers Court as soon as he received the news of the murder. But I don't think we have any evidence about when he received the news or where he was at the time he received it.

It also seems to assume that he was sitting around not doing very much on the day of the Lord Mayor's Procession, just waiting for another murder so he could leap into action.

You mention that he got to Goulston Street 'pretty sharpish'. The graffiti in Goulston Street was discovered by PC Long at about 2:55am and reported by him to an inspector at about 3:10am. If Arnold was on duty at the time and got there within 2 hours, i.e. before 5:10am, it begs the question as to when he got the chance to sleep (so perhaps he slept in the day). I note that the writing was said to have been rubbed out at about 5:30am. If Arnold didn't get there until 5:10am that means it took him two hours to arrive, just like the two hours between 11:30am and 1:30pm

In short, I can't see why you think that the question is of any importance or what you think the answer to it would reveal but then I am baffled by a lot of questions being asked on this forum.