the key

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"In fact, Barnett is no more suspicious than the whole lot of them."

Exactly so - but try convicving Heinrich of that ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

If you're convinced, that's all I need.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Consider it a done deal, Mike!

Fisherman

[Heinrich]

.... take your pick. Surely Mccarthy, Bowyer, Julia, Maria Harvey, Barnett, Bloctchy, and a host of other customers would have had the opportunity to see how to undo the latch. In fact, Barnett is no more suspicious than the whole lot of them.

Of these, Barnett stands head and shoulders above the rest for the reasons I enumerated in Post #41. You mention the landlord, John McCarthy and his employee, Thomas Bowyer, who, in contrast to Joseph Barnett, had a relationship with Mary Kelly only as a tenant. Furthermore, Bowyer did not even know Mary Kelly's name according to his statement at her inquest! When asked by the coroner whether he had often seen Mary Kelly, Bowyer said he had but added, without any prompting, that he knew the previous witness, Joseph Barnett. Joseph Barnett had lived with Mary Kelly at that address until recently. Unlike Joseph Barnett who admitted to having been with Mary Kelly on the night of the murder, the last time Bowyer saw her, according to his statement, was a few days before that. Remember too that neither the landlord nor Bowyer was able to help the police to get into the premises without bashing down the door and this was McCarthy's property! As for motive, well, slaughtering and mutilating a tenant for being behind on the rent is too incredible for words.
As for the "blotchy" man, in contrast to Joseph Barnett, he was never seen before nor since and his existence depends on the say-so of one eye witness, not much to go on.
I do not share you willingness to believe that a woman is the killer nor that it could have been anyone under the sun, Mike.

[Heinrich]

Of these, Barnett stands head and shoulders above the rest for the reasons I enumerated in Post #41.

Make that Post #217

[Lechmere]

I would guess he didn’t go to the shipyards as the Riper wasn’t familiar with that district. Also the waterfront was controlled and secured for customs and excise reasons.
I am fairly certain the Ripper only went where his victim took him. He murdered them in a location that was ‘safe’ enough for and illicit sexual encounter. If he didn’t feel safe then I am sure there would have been instances when he made his excuses and left.
On this basis, the only difference about Kelly is that she took him to a much more secure place, where he wasn’t hurried and the circumstances allowed him to wait. It is not surprising that the different circumstances produced a different result – namely greater mutilation and an apparent pause before the attack.
If the bed wasn’t made then it somewhat undermines the theory that she was undressed for sleeping purposes and the Ripper was an acquaintance who made a late night visit that turned murderous.

Thinking about the door –if it was genuinely locked then it would indeed imply that the Ripper had somehow found or acquired the key and went off with it. There is a chance Kelly could have just found it and he took it off her after killing her.
However with the experience of the Batty Street killing I think the police and the press would have jumped on that clue and made a very big deal of it, were there any substance to it. That they did not implies there was no mystery.
I find it very strange that McCarthy and Bowyer wouldn’t know that they could open the door via the window if need be though. Maybe the horror of the situation froze their minds.

[claire]

Various points come to mind reading through the legion of posts that have rallied since I was here 2 days ago (!)...

1. The (off-topic) issue of Fleming's height: I would say this. It's very plausible for distracted note-takers to get a tic, substituting one wrong digit for another. I'm not dissuaded by the 6'7'' height; I think it was a mistake. Much of my reasoning for this comes not from medical/BMI analysis, but simply that it was said that Kelly continued to see Fleming, who was local to the area, and I find it odd that no one should mention having seen her in such company. It would have been remarkable.

2. I am not convinced that all of Kelly's visitors would have been privy to the latch-trick: there's every chance that she left her door open when she was not in, particularly if she'd just popped out for a short period, meaning that anyone accompanying her back from the pub/wherever would not have witnessed this manoeuvre. If Barnett/Kelly used it, I suspect it would have been when the other was sleeping, or if the other had been out for some time.

3. McCarthy and Bowyer would have had good, self-preservative reasons for not revealing they knew that opening the lock in this way was possible.

4. Like others, I don't see that the bunched up blanket(s) form a bedroll in the way of being a form of day-dress for a bed. Why would you make up the bed with the sheets exposed and then sit on those sheets, which you'd suppose you'd want to keep as clean as possible, and then loll on them in dayclothes whilst others were in the room? I think Rubyretro's scenario is more than possible, as is the idea that the sheets were cut when they were underneath her, as the killer slashed away in the dark.

[The Good Michael]

Claire,

About Fleming: The height means that this particular Fleming was probably not the Ripper. It doesn't mean that it was the same Fleming as Kelly's ex.

Mike

[harry]

If one studies the photo of the lock in post 194,a couple of things becme apparant.Firstly that type of lock,had two bolts.The small one,the self locking spring type,was operated by a handle on both inside and out side of the door.The handles or knobs were attached to a square bar which,when inserted through the square slot adjacent to the bolt,operated the bolt itself.Only a catch on the inside of the door,when set,could stop the handles from working.The large bolt could only be activated by a key.
When the key was lost,it is most probable that the large key operated bolt,was in the open position,and that opening and closing functions relied on the small spring loaded bolt.That is,if that type of lock was fitted to Kelly's door,but I do not think it was,nor do I think any kind of spring operated bolt was.As I wrote before,that lock on Kelly's door was most likely fitted many years before 1888,and there were numerous kinds of lever operated bolts of of that time.Nor do I attach any importance to the way the premises were entered,The police had the power to force entry,and this is what they did.It would help if it was known what type of lock was on Kelly's door.From photos and drawings it is hard to tell whether there was a handle or knob on the outside.If one was sure,it would explain many puzzles.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"I am fairly certain the Ripper only went where his victim took him. "

I am not fairly certain about it - but I think much points to it. Which is why I say that it is strange that the killer did not realize before the Kelly deed that more secluded and hidden-away venues, CHOSEN BY HIMSELF, would have been advantageous. And I do claim that there would have been plenty of such venues.

I will also claim, with some heat, that this discussion arguably is going nowhere, since we both know that our respective views are quite viable - and totally unprovable ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Claire:

"I think Rubyretro's scenario is more than possible, as is the idea that the sheets were cut when they were underneath her, as the killer slashed away in the dark."

This - the question about the "much cut" bedlinen - is an interesting detail! These cuts were found in the bloodsoaked section of the sheet, covering the top hand corner of the mattress close to the partition wall.
We know that Bond suggested that the killer had covered Kellys face with the sheet as he cut her. And there would have been a very easy way for him to check whether this was a correct assumption or not. So the question is: DID he check?
I say he did! Why else would he claim something that could so easily be disproven?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Fisherman
Just to apply a little more heat (as it’s on my mind!)... I don't think there were many secluded spots - there were a lot of rough sleepers.
If there had been deserted buildings then I am fairly sure they would have been squatted quickly.
For example when the Pinchin Street torso was found, it transpired that the other railway arches all had people sleeping in then. It was almost as if you were to peep into any sheltered spot and you would find people there. It was a human ant heap.
The 'venues' did differ and could be seen as attempts to get a better location (although I don't think it was the case).

In a house (if we include Wilson)
A dark stairwell (if we included Tabram which I am minded to)
In the street for Nichols
A back yard for Chapman.
Back in the street for Stride (I would include her)
In an enclosed square for Eddowes
Inside for Kelly

One last thing - finding a suitable victim without being closely observed would have been slightly tricky. Then enticing them to a predetermined or at least already sussed out suitable murder spot would have been more difficult. The actual murder sites don't really suggest that was the case and tended to be regular prostitute areas of business.

And again I will caution that we don't actually know for certain that the other Joe that Kelly was supposed to be seeing was Flemming.

[Phil H]

As to venue, I don't think "Jack" made any choices - his victims almost certainly led him to the murder sites.

Note: each site (bar MJK) is close to a fence or gates on which the woman could lean and which would have some "give" - slightly more comfortable than a brick wall! They knew these spots and also how secluded they were.

I think "Jack" may have been familiar, in some way and for some reason, with the backyard(s) of Hanbury St, maybe No 29's in particular. I think it would have been foolhardy, even for him, to go there without knowing what lay beyond the two doors.

So I don't agree for a moment that "Jack" was trying out different locales, or seeking a perfect spot - he was an opportunist, who when satisfied that he was alone with his victim and unlikely to be disturbed for a few minutes, struck.

Phil

[Lechmere]

Yes that must be the most likely answer and I see no reason at all why it should be different with Kelly - notwithstanding any possibly locked doors and missing keys.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"I don't think there were many secluded spots - there were a lot of rough sleepers."

With respect, Lechmere, we simply think differently here. I think it will be a safe bet that there were numerous spots that would have offered much better circumstances than the open space in Buckīs Row, for example. I hear what you say, though.

"If there had been deserted buildings then I am fairly sure they would have been squatted quickly."

If? There WERE deserted buildings. Three of the houses adjoining Mitre Square were listed as uninhabited, and if we look at listings over the whole East End, we have scores of such uninhabited buildings around. If they were all squatted, I donīt know, and I will not be able to find out, furthermore - but by and large, what I am saying is that a murder like the one in Buckīs Row, committed totally out in the open, must have been a murder where at least some sort of better concealing venue could have been chosen, never mind if that meant in a doorway, behind a dustbin or under a horsecart. Surely you have no objections to this...?

"finding a suitable victim without being closely observed would have been slightly tricky."

I think we have earlier agreed that many a street would have been empty in the small hours, Lechmere, so I am not as sure as you are about this. The task would have had itīs built-in risks of being observed, yes, but no certainty of close observation is necessarily around, is it?

"Then enticing them to a predetermined or at least already sussed out suitable murder spot would have been more difficult."

To a smaller or larger degree this will be true. Then again, opting for a doorway would not mean all that much trouble, Iīd say. I would also say that in Nichols case, a very fair case can be made that the spot where she was killed was perhaps not a spot where she would engage in paid-for sex; she may well have had a doorway or passage of some sort in mind, but never reached that venue since the killer made his move before it.

Now, this may be right and it may be wrong - maybe she was so drunk that she did not give a damn, maybe streetwalkers DID serve clients in the open street - but I donīt think that this was the case. And if so, then Polly may well have led the way from, say, Whitechapel High Street, into the lesser frequented streets and alleys, with a specific locality in mind, but been stopped short by her slayer. And if this is true, then he actively chose a totally open space to kill in.

Well, well - it all remains guesses anyway ...

"again I will caution that we don't actually know for certain that the other Joe that Kelly was supposed to be seeing was Flemming"

You could be right there - a prostituteīs life is a life full of Joeīs ...

The best,
Fisherman