the key

[Fisherman]

Phil:

"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."

I donīt know with whom you would agree about Jack seeking out the perfect locale, Phil - it would not be with me, at least, for I ALSO see Jack as an opportunist, I ALSO think the victims led the way normally, and I ALSO think that Jack struck - and would strike - at the first possible moment. Thatīs what opportunism is about.


The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

" But that does not change the fact that he seemed totally uninterested in any preludes of any sorts as he killed Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

Can we be certain of this? There was quite a bit of unexplained time between when Nicholas was last seen and her body discovered. She had traveled a very short distance for the amount of time.

There were several missing hours for Annie Chapman -- to me, she's a great mystery.

And even Martha Tabram went hours without any sighting reports.

We have no idea what happened during those times.

Adding to that is that if you wish to consider Elizabeth Stride as part of the group, she was seen over several hours with possible "preludes"

I don't think we can be that certain of what the killer did before he began his "work."

curious

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Can we be certain of this?"

No.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

There were several missing hours for Annie Chapman -- to me, she's a great mystery.

Try playing with the idea that she was killed earlier than usually stated (5.30pm).

If for a moment (just for argument) we say that Mrs Long was mistaken in her identification in Hanbury St (she saw someone else) and that Cadoche heard NOT the murder, but someone unknown dinging the body, we can then hypothesise that "Jack" struck in the hours of darkness.

This is much more in keeping with the times that Nichols and Eddowes died, and makes more sense.is less risky than committing a murder and mutilations in an enclosed yard, surrounded by windows in increasing daylight.

It also measn that Chapman does not have to be imagined traipsing around the streets for so long.

Just a thought.

Phil

[Lechmere]

Fisherman – on empty dwellings (and arches) I should, have added that the beat policemen tended to check such places for intruders and turfed rough sleepers out.
On Nichols you may be right that he killed her as she led him somewhere – i.e. before reaching any destination. That raises the question as to where she was leading him – to Woods Buildings?
That would mean she met him at the Brady Street end of Bucks Row and was proceeding westwards. Unlikely I think.
I would say that the spot she was killed was ‘fairly’ safe for her business. It was very dark and there was a good view either way.

The streets were I agree sparsely peopled at that time of night, although not empty. As has been pointed out no one saw Nichols after she left the end of Osborn Street. No one saw Chapman for a while. That Kelly wasn’t seen after Blotchy (except by Hutchinson perhaps and those strange morning sightings) is hardly good evidence that she did not re-emerge.

[Heinrich]

If one studies the photo of the lock in post 194, a couple of things become apparent. 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.

Exactly, harry. It is for this reason I posted a picture of this type of latch which was common from Victorian times.

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.

It was a common type of latch and so there is no reason to disbelieve one such was on Mary Kelly's door, harry. We do not know when it was fitted but tenants came and went with regularity, not least for non-payment of rent, and McCarthy must have had many occasions for replacing locks for his "rents".

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.

Actually, harry, the police did not break in the door but McCarthy did on their instruction. It is of some significance, in my opinion, that Joseph Barnett was used to entering the dwelling without a key and with ease.

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.

Quite so, harry. The common latch in the picture is the simplest explanation for explaining the testimony of several that they key had been lost and yet the door was locked (with the spring bolt). By lifting the latch, Mary Kelly and Joseph Barnett were able to enter at will while the casual visitor, as we have seen in the case of the Metropolitan Police, the landlord and his employee, were flummoxed.

[Phil H]

On Nichols you may be right that he killed her as she led him somewhere – i.e. before reaching any destination. That raises the question as to where she was leading him – to Woods Buildings?

Of course, anything can be argued, but I see no reason to doubt that she was killed at the place to which she had led him - the stable gates. Like the other sites the doors would have provided an element of "give" when leaning against the, and the doors were slightly recessed. The street is known to have been relatively dark and that hour and anyone approaching would be seen (or heard) at a distance.

Phil

[Lechmere]

Yes that is my view

[claire]

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?

I think this question is slightly to the side of the one that questions whether the bed was made, Fish. But I would say that it might have been very difficult for Bond to confirm his belief; it seems unlikely (impossible) that the sheet remained in place over her face for the whole attack, and the extent of damage to the face would have largely precluded matching sheet cut to wound. Still, I'm very comfortable with the notion of its starting out over her; I'm quite sure she was in her bed for sleep when the killer attacked.

As for the 'was Joe actually Fleming' question, clearly we don't know. But I think it's worth exhausting the Joe-as-Fleming scenario before we move on to a third Joe.

[curious]

There were several missing hours for Annie Chapman -- to me, she's a great mystery.

Try playing with the idea that she was killed earlier than usually stated (5.30pm).

If for a moment (just for argument) we say that Mrs Long was mistaken in her identification in Hanbury St (she saw someone else) and that Cadoche heard NOT the murder, but someone unknown dinging the body, we can then hypothesise that "Jack" struck in the hours of darkness.

This is much more in keeping with the times that Nichols and Eddowes died, and makes more sense.is less risky than committing a murder and mutilations in an enclosed yard, surrounded by windows in increasing daylight.

It also measn that Chapman does not have to be imagined traipsing around the streets for so long.

Just a thought.

Phil

From early on, for many reasons, I have considered it very likely that Annie died earlier than 5:30. Perhaps even earlier than 4:30. (I realize that's an unpopular theory here.)

What I'm trying to figure out is if she went to the house in Hanbury almost immediately after she was last seen.

She had sold her crochet work to Mrs. Richardson so she perhaps knew she could sleep in the hallway there.

If so, how and when did she meet "Jack"?

curious

[Wickerman]

..... Still, I'm very comfortable with the notion of its starting out over her; I'm quite sure she was in her bed for sleep when the killer attacked.

So are you saying she fell asleep with the sheet over her face, and the intruder proceded to slash at her covered head while she was still alive, asleep?

[harry]

I quite agree with Fisherman(that's odd)about Jack being an opportunist,and I think the Kelly killing reinforces that.A victim alone,in a room that could be secured against interuption,at a time when interuption was least likely to occur,where sound if any,and there must have been little,would be passed off as normal occupant activity.Where departure was through a short dark passage to a street that could be monitred before entering.Whose exit,even if observed,would be from a rear view by court occupants.Opportunity aplenty,and even more so if the killer was already aquainted with victim and location,and the circumstances existing..One drawback was a silent killing,this could never be presumed,and was a chance that had to be taken,and assessed at the time.Well it was.

[Heinrich]

....Opportunity aplenty, and even more so if the killer was already acquainted with victim and location, and the circumstances existing..One drawback was a silent killing, this could never be presumed, and was a chance that had to be taken, and assessed at the time. ....

No one was more acquainted with the victim and her dwelling than Joseph Barnett, harry, who, without the need for a key, could make his own opportunity in the dead of night. By slitting her throat first, as Dr George Bagster Phillips, who examined the corpse at the scene, believed, and the mutilations performed post mortem, silence was guaranteed. Despite all the carnage, there was no sign of defensive wounds, leading us to believe there had been no commotion.

[Wickerman]

Hi Harry.

....A victim alone,in a room that could be secured against interuption,at a time when interuption was least likely to occur,where sound if any,and there must have been little,would be passed off as normal occupant activity.Where departure was through a short dark passage to a street that could be monitred before entering.Whose exit,even if observed,would be from a rear view by court occupants......

Consider though, it is believed that McCarthy's shop sometimes closed as late as 3:00am. So until 3:00am there still may have been the possibility of being noticed while exiting the passage by anyone coming or going or loitering by McCarthy's, as indeed Mrs McCarthy claimed one instance did occur.
So, did the killer wait until after 3:00am on purpose?, or was this just a coincidence?

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"On Nichols you may be right that he killed her as she led him somewhere – i.e. before reaching any destination...
...I would say that the spot she was killed was ‘fairly’ safe for her business. It was very dark and there was a good view either way."

We can discuss this to hell freezes over, without anyone of us ever having to accept the other partīs view, I think. I will just say that I think that a very fair case can be made for Nichols having been slain in another place than one she would have opted for businessways. Her body was found almost under a window in New Cottage behind which a woman, sleeping very light normally (Emma Green) lived. These sleepwise shortcomings would reasonably not have been known to Nichols, but I still think that she would not have felt compelled to choose an obviously risky place in a risky street (Cross and Paul inform us that this was a useful passageway for cartmen) for doing business.

So you think, and I think, and never the twine shall meet, apparently! And like I say, I donīt in any way see that you cannot be correct - you can, of course. We know that the Ripper would have accompanied Chapman through that passageway of 29 Hanbury Street before he struck, and he seemingly took the walk down Church passage with Eddowes, so he was not disorganized or bold enough to jump at his chosen prey at first sight ...

... but my feeling remains that he was not the type of killer that would hang around, doing nothing, whilst Kelly took of her outer garments, put her boots away, lit the fire, undressed and crept to bed, snuggling up in the far corner, before he struck. It is just a feeling I have, just like you have a feeling that this DID occur.

"That Kelly wasn’t seen after Blotchy (except by Hutchinson perhaps and those strange morning sightings) is hardly good evidence that she did not re-emerge."

Nope - it is only evidence that either nobody saw her go out or that somebody DID see it - but chose not to tell the police or press about it. Therefore, we are once again left to guess. And my guess is that she called it a night, drunk or partially drunk and very unwilling to go out into the miserable weather. Most people in that situation would instead draw the curtains, light a fire, get undressed and go to bed, hoping that next day would offer new takings and better weather.

The best,
Fisherman