the key

[Ben]

“Or, are you suggesting this intruder was stalking Kelly, that he knew which room to watch? How contrived do we need to get in this?”

It's not in the least bit “contrived”, Jon. It's perfectly simple. The premise that the killer, in this instance, was an intruder who had monitored the crime scene beforehand is perfectly logical, and one that is based on the evidence of other serial killers behaving in a very similar fashion went presented with an indoor crime scene. He would not have been required to walk “up and down the passage and around the court”. He would simply have stationed himself at one or two vantage points, like other serial killers, and monitored Kelly’s comings and goings, noticing whether or not she had company etc.

This would have enabled the killer to better assess the chances being disturbed once he’d entered the room than had he been a client who relied on Kelly’s word that nobody was likely to bother them, or that the man who had just stooped down to look him in the face would not take his curiosity any further.

“We should not address each crime as if this was his sole intended victim that night.”

Agreed, but more to the point, we should not address each crime as though he followed precisely the same routine every night. On some occasions he might have approached his victims, whereas with others, a prostitute seeking business might have approached him. In Kelly’s case, he might have been aware of her circumstances for some time, and only now felt able to act once these circumstances had altered in his potential favour, i.e. Barnett leaving.

“We should not assume that he targetted Kelly, nor that he knew the room where she lived, nor that he knew she (recently) lived alone”

Not “assume” no, but we should regard it as a valid suggestion and not in the least bit unlikely.

“Remember, she had only been unattached for a matter of days, and had another prostitute living with her until Wednesday.”

Yes, but unless Barnett remained in the room all the time when the couple were together, it seems reasonable to surmise that she may have used her room for business when he was absent, without him every finding out.

All the best,
Ben

[Heinrich]

....
There was plenty of opportunity to send for a locksmith.

A most horrid crime had taken place at 13 Millers Court. Although there had been considerable delay before gaining entrance on account of confusion regarding the possible use of bloodhounds, if the owner had not opened the door at the demand of the police there and then, they would have kicked it in. Nothing would have justified waiting for McCarthy to find a locksmith on the day of the Lord Mayor's parade.

[harry]

Jon,Heinrich,
Have I said any different.The first person to discover the murder went to Mcarthy.They then went for the police.The police took charge,and it was known then,right from the beginning,that the door was closed and would not open.Mcarthy would have known whether there was a spare key.That he didn't produce one seems to suggest he didn't have one,and that he didn't reveal that the bolt could be accessed through the window,seems to suggest he was unaware of that.The senior officer present then sent for other senior officers,meanwhile securing the scene.There was plenty of opportunity to send for a locksmith.

[Wickerman]

This sort of thing is often established beforehand through discreet surveillance of the building and the surrounding locality, Jon, as I hope you'll know already from studying other serial offenders and their pre-crime approaches, particularly when their intended targets were people living in their own homes. Bundy, Rader and Napper all spring to mind here.

Ben, you cannot seriously expect a killer to casually walk up and down the passage and around the court without being seen, for how long?
Which room was your intruder supposed to be watching, the one with windows blacked out by blinds/curtain/coat, and closed door?
Or, are you suggesting this intruder was stalking Kelly, that he knew which room to watch? How contrived do we need to get in this?

The most assured way that any killer will have some confidence that 'they' will not be interupted is for him to gain entry as a client.
A surprised break-in is fraught with all manner of uncertainties in an enclosed court with neighbours coming and going at all hours.
And, unless he has been inside before, he is unlikely to expect a backroom to a house to have internal doors blocked off. An intruder/stranger would not know this.

A client will be able to determine all those uncertainties I listed after he gained legitimate entry, but more importantly 'before' he decided to act out his crime. We should not address each crime as if this was his sole intended victim that night. By this I mean this killer could have approached any number of women on the street before he found one where the curcumstances were acceptable for a quick kill and clean getaway. This should also apply to Kelly. This killer may have been in another room with another prostitute where circumstances were not conducive for him to act out his crime, so he might just go through the sex act and leave.

We should not assume that he targetted Kelly, nor that he knew the room where she lived, nor that he knew she (recently) lived alone. Remember, she had only been unattached for a matter of days, and had another prostitute living with her until Wednesday.
That leaves very little room for suggesting a previous client was invloved.


Harry.
I think Heinrich got it right, the police would not entertain any convoluted means of entry, they will simply break in the door. Naturaly they would give the owner of the property the option of gaining entry first.
Perhaps they suggested that McCarthy opens the door immediately, by any necessary means, or they will. Having said that I doubt McCarthy will smash the door to splinters, if he was anything like Rigsby (Rising Damp) he would just ease it open causing as little damage as possible.
Although time was not of the essence, I doubt very much they would all stand around waiting for a locksmith to show up and then fiddle & faff about for god knows how long.

Regards, Jon S.

[Heinrich]

....
The only odd thing that strikes me,is that knowing from the first that the door had to be opened,they didn't send for a locksmith.

The police had the owner of the property (John McCarthy) with them and they rightly expected him to provide access for them. Clearly, he was unaware how easy it would have been to lift the latch so he bashed it in with a pickax handle. Joseph Barnett, on the other hand, is the one who later told the police about the trick of lifting the latch which adds to the evidence against him.

Harry - when the question of why the Police didn't reach through the window to open the door, came up on a different thread, someone suggested that the table loaded with bits of flesh was placed between the window and the door when the killer left (on purpose). The photographer moved the table close to the bed, to get everything into the photos and out of his way.
This seems a credible explanation to me.

Why would Joseph Barnett have moved the table to block the door before exiting through the window? The door was self-locking which would deter all but the most determined visitor from entering.
The police would not have permitted a photographer into the room before they had gained access.

Ruby,
That might be if the photographer was first into the room,but was he?. Even so,he either didn't notice the bolt was catched,or he failed to report so.I have a book in my possession that say's a photographer went in and out by the window,but I doubt the truth of it.

The photographer would have been called for only after the police had inspected the crime scene and they got in by the door.
By then, the photographer could have moved furniture to set up a composition. I think he must have moved the bed with the mutilated corpse of Mary Kelly on it so as to get a view from her right side which would otherwise have been impossible had the bed been up against the partition wall as described by Mr. George Bagster Phillips, divisional surgeon of police who had been called to the scene. Interestingly, at the inquest, it was noted that "The position of the two tables was not altered" but the same was not said of the bed.


View of the crime scene taken from the right side of the bed.

[harry]

Ruby,
That might be if the photographer was first into the room,but was he?. Even so,he either didn't notice the bolt was catched,or he failed to report so.I have a book in my possession that say's a photographer went in and out by the window,but I doubt the truth of it.

[Rubyretro]

Harry - when the question of why the Police didn't reach through the window to open the door, came up on a different thread, someone suggested that the table loaded with bits of flesh was placed between the window and the door when the killer left (on purpose). The photographer moved the table close to the bed, to get everything into the photos and out of his way.

This seems a credible explanation to me.

[harry]

If it was so easy to open the door,why was it forced.Not neccessarily because the physical act of doing so was not easy,reference Aberlines remark,and he was speaking in hindsight,but maybe because of a misunderstanding at the time.It was simply overlooked.All attention when looking through the window would have been focussed on the body,and when the order to open the door was given,after a fairly long wait,those that complied with the order,not knowing of an easier method,did it the best way they knew,forced it.The bolt would not have been visible from outside,the hole in the pane was not big enough to put a head through to observe it.The only odd thing that strikes me,is that knowing from the first that the door had to be opened,they didn't send for a locksmith.

[Ben]

I was referring to assumptions that were made in 1888 – in other words if you read how the case was reported it seems obvious that the police at the time assumed the killer accessed 13 Miller’s Court in company with Mary Kelly

I don't see too much evidence of this, Lechmere.

Certainly, there were police officials who believed that Blotchy was the killer, and he did enter the court "in company with Mary Kelly".

That's understandable.

The reality of the Bundy case may not have a direct bearing on the 1888 police's perceptions regarding the killer, but it is of interest to us today, inasmuch as it informs us that different crime venues often call for a different type of approach.

"It also requires him to know there were no other lodgers.
To know that there was a woman inside alone.
To know that no visitors were expected."

This sort of thing is often established beforehand through discreet surveillance of the building and the surrounding locality, Jon, as I hope you'll know already from studying other serial offenders and their pre-crime approaches, particularly when their intended targets were people living in their own homes. Bundy, Rader and Napper all spring to mind here.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

By whom? Not, I take it, by the people who would realize that Kelly was in no position to burn clothes?

I don't know who these "people" are, but in asserting that Kelly was not in a position to burn clothes, they are espousing dreadful nonsense. The fact that Harvey brought them over in the first place should inform us that they were likely to remain there and serve as some sort of gift or donation to Kelly. Why else would she bring them over?

There was unlikely to have been a "fierce fire", by the way. This factoid has been doing the rounds for too long, has very little in the way of supportive evidence, and hasn't receieved much mainstream spoort in recent years.

"so he threw the garments on the fire to DECREASE it, turning it to less of a giveaway"

Why garments, plural? One of the shirts would have been sufficient to extinguish this "fierce" fire that probably never existed. The fact that all of them were used suggests very strongly that they were used as fuel, probably for the purpose of creating warmth rather than light.

What I won´t give you, though, is any recognition that "shadow" equals "extreme darkness". You will have to do a lot better than that, I´m afraid!

No, I don't think I do actually. I'm not particularly concerned with satisfying your criteria for determining what constitutes "very dark" or "extemely dark", but we're talking about an entirely unlit corner, cast in shadow at night time in Victorian London. As I've observed elsewhere, it pays to use one's imagination.

The logical thing would therefore be to accept that when she says "the light was then out", she refers to the lamp in the court. So in all probability, it would not have helped the killer if he got going around 4 AM.

But then this would mean there could have been a light in Kelly's room, if she was referring to the lamp outside being "out" and not Kelly's room.

Then again, the Times writes: "It was raining, and witness returned home at 3:10 a.m., and the light in deceased's room was then out and there was no noise."

But then this would mean that the lamp outside could still have bathed the room in temporary light as the killer entered it.

Heads I win, tails you lose, basically!

Just tweaking your bum, Fisherman.

[Wickerman]

The reality of the Bundy case is quite irrelevant to how the police saw the Ripper case at the time.

Quite right, the 'intruder' hypothesis requires this leopard to change his spots.
It also requires him to know there were no other lodgers.
To know that there was a woman inside alone.
To know that no visitors were expected.
To know that there was no interconnecting doors to the rest of the house.
Or, ...maybe he was just very lucky.

Kelly did not have a long list of clients while at this address, she moved in with Barnett.

Regards, Jon S.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
When I said:
“The clear assumption was that someone went back with her and did it.”
I was referring to assumptions that were made in 1888 – in other words if you read how the case was reported it seems obvious that the police at the time assumed the killer accessed 13 Miller’s Court in company with Mary Kelly, rather than the murderer being an intruder.
This should have been clear to you as the previous sentence read:
“The ‘intruder’ idea is I would suggest at the very least not contemporary.”

The reality of the Bundy case is quite irrelevant to how the police saw the Ripper case at the time.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I also wonder if the light outside room occupied by Julia Vanturney and directly opposite Kelly's room might have provided temporary illumination for the killer as he opened the door, enabling him to register the location of Kelly, the bed, furniture etc."

Cox, from the inquest:

" He had a blotchy face, and full carrotty moustache.
[Coroner] The chin was shaven ? - Yes. A LAMP FACED THE DOOR.
[Coroner] Did you see them go into her room ? - Yes; I said "Good night, Mary," and she turned round and banged the door.
[Coroner] Had he anything in his hands but the can ? - No.
[Coroner] Did she say anything ? - She said "Good night, I am going to have a song." As I went in she sang "A violet I plucked from my mother's grave when a boy." I remained a quarter of an hour in my room and went out. Deceased was still singing at one o'clock when I returned. I remained in the room for a minute to warm my hands as it was raining, and went out again. She was singing still, and I returned to my room at three o'clock. The HE LIGHT WAS THEN OUT and there was no noise."

In the testimony recorded from the inquest, Cox does not mention any light inside Kelly´s room, but only the one from the lamp. The logical thing would therefore be to accept that when she says "the light was then out", she refers to the lamp in the court. So in all probability, it would not have helped the killer if he got going around 4 AM.

Then again, the Times writes: "It was raining, and witness returned home at 3:10 a.m., and the light in deceased's room was then out and there was no noise."

One wonders who got it right. But either way, there was no light coming from Kelly´s room. We can tell that much.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Because it is not consistent with the crime scene evidence, Fisherman, at least not as far as I'm concerned. Clothing burns very slowly, and I have always regarded it as somewhat unlikely that the killer himself was responsible for the fueling of the fire with clothing."

By whom? Not, I take it, by the people who would realize that Kelly was in no position to burn clothes? Less so, I would imagine, if the clothes belonged to somebody else than herself?
Add to this that clothes more often than not put fires out instead of fuelling them. That is why we throw blankets on fires to put them out.

"Surely, if that were the case, he would have added Kelly's own clothes to the mix. "

There had been a fierce fire, it was said. Why add Kelly´s clothes? To make it fiercer?
Try, instead, if you will, another angle that just crossed my mind - the killer fuelled the fire to see what he was doing, and at some stage, he realized that the roaring fire may attract unwanted attention, so he threw the garments on the fire to DECREASE it, turning it to less of a giveaway.

Or is that illogical and not in accord with the evidence too?

" I still maintain that I'm not exaggerating the extent of darkness in Mitre Square, though. As Philip Sugden points out:

"The lamp-post was sixty-five feet away. And, since the corner of Mr. Taylor's shop interposed between the murder site and a "lantern lamp" on the corner of the Walter Williams & Co. warehouse in Mitre Street, the spot was plunged into shadow after lighting up time.""

You don´t give up easily, I´ll give you that. What I won´t give you, though, is any recognition that "shadow" equals "extreme darkness". You will have to do a lot better than that, I´m afraid!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Oh, for goodness' sake.

Jon, I was the first on this thread to point out that there was a lamp opposite the door*, but it hung outside Julia Venturney room's and not Kelly's, as you claimed in a recent post.

Simply that the police made no consideration along the lines of looking for a burglar or even offering evidence at the inquest consistent with there being a break-in at #13 that night.

What do you mean "looking" for a burglar. Do eviscerating burglars "look" any different from eviscerating prostitutes' clients? The inquest evidence is perfectly consistent "with there being a break-in at #13 that night". At the very least, there was certainly nothing "inconsistent" with such a scenario that emerged at the inquest.

*I also wonder if the light outside room #1 (occupied by Julia Vanturney and directly opposite Kelly's room) might have provided temporary illumination for the killer as he opened the door, enabling him to register the location of Kelly, the bed, furniture etc.