the key

[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.

[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.

[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

[Rubyretro]

I agree with every word that you've said here, Ben.

[curious]

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.



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.



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



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

Hi, Ben,
At this point, I'm unsure how Kelly met the killer, but I do agree with you that it is possible that he had previously scouted her and her situation.

It makes sense that he would.

In fact, I have wondered for a long time if the victims weren't somehow "primed" -- maybe with something new that they almost all had.

At the least, I suspect he may have been a repeat customer so that he was trusted by his victims.

Just rummaging ideas around in my head.

curious

[Lechmere]

I would suggest that Kelly’s abode didn’t really lend itself to stalking as it was down a side court. For all the stalker might know, anyone who went down the passage may enter no 13.

If the Ripper wanted to find a random stalk victim I would suggest he would have selected one that lived in premises where the door could be seen much more easily than having to stand directly opposite Miller’s Court.

[Wickerman]

I would suggest that Kelly’s abode didn’t really lend itself to stalking as it was down a side court. For all the stalker might know, anyone who went down the passage may enter no 13.

Precisely Lechmere, thankyou.
A dozen rooms down that court but this stalker-killer chooses to loiter in Dorset St's equivalent of Picadilly Circus, and with the shop still open to boot!


Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Some sensible and astute points there, Curious, with which I'd agree entirely.

As for my two shadows...oops, I meant fabulously astute respondents, I really wouldn't cling to the notion that Miller's Court was unsuitable for the purposes of monitoring any individual who occupied a dwelling therein. If the killer was familiar with Kelly in some other non-murderous capacity, then the act of "stalking" would have consisted of simple surveillance of the court, along with the comings and goings of its occupants. Study a few other serial killers (which I know full fell that some of my most insistent pesterers haven't), and you'll realize what I propose is perfectly in accordance with their behaviour.

[Heinrich]

Joseph Barnett was acting something like a stalker inasmuch as he continued to visit Mary Kelly in her dwelling despite claiming that he had left her because of her company-keeping and intention to continue prostitution. He just would not leave her alone but unlike a stranger who stalks, he could enter 13 Miller's Court whenever he wished despite the lost key.

[harry]

Heinrich,
You seem to be missing the point.There was over three hours delay between the time it was found the door wouldn't open,and the order to force it.

[Rubyretro]

Joseph Barnett was acting something like a stalker inasmuch as he continued to visit Mary Kelly in her dwelling despite claiming that he had left her because of her company-keeping and intention to continue prostitution. He just would not leave her alone but unlike a stranger who stalks, he could enter 13 Miller's Court whenever he wished despite the lost key.

Heinrich -a stalker is someone who continues with their attention towards someone who makes it clear that they want to be left alone.

You have no way of knowing that Mary didn't welcome Joe.

Your theory would stand up better if it had been Mary who dumped Joe -but it was He who moved out, and He who had a problem with her lifestyle.

There is nothing to suggest that Mary had to get McCarthy, or some strong
armed friends, to bodily throw out Joe from Miller's Court and so the inference is that he willingly left .

There are often grey areas in the immediate time after the breakdown of a relationship -particularly where the person who is left is very upset, and the person doing the leaving feels guilty about abandonning someone that they still care about but can't be with anymore.

How do you know that wasn't the case here ?

Personally, I can't see any reason at all to see Joe as a 'stalker'. Certainly, he knew how to get into her room, but there are 4 clear ways that the killer could have accessed the room :
-via the window
-via the unlocked door
-Mary letting the killer in herself
-using the key (having stolen it at a much earlier date).

On balance that does suggest that she did have an aquaintanceship with her killer, or he stalked her...but in no way does it narrow things to Joe. Given the number of punters she must have had, or men she met in the pub, the field is wide open regarding entry to the room; It's a detail, that's all.

P.S I don't need to add that I think that Wideawake Man (and/or) Hutchinson apparently surveilling the room just prior to the murder are/is very much more suspicious than Joe Barnett coming round openly.

[Lechmere]

So Ben you do think that 13 Miller's Court was a suitable location to stalk a potential victim? Even though it was down a side court with no way out and a suitable vantage point with a view down the court could only be gained from one location - directly opposite - where everyone coming in and out would see the stalker straight away and it was also outside a very big and busy lodging house, so again people would be likely to see the stalker?

Were I a murderous stalker (and I hasten to add that I'm not) and I lived just down the road, and was supposedly known by the target, then I am sure I would select a more discrete location.

[Heinrich]

....
Your theory would stand up better if it had been Mary who dumped Joe -but it was He who moved out, and He who had a problem with her lifestyle.

This is Joseph Barnett's version and it lacks credibility.
He had had several arguments with Mary Kelly about her lifestyle and he had given her an ultimatum to change. She refused his attempts to stop her having her own friends and being a prostitute. Despite his allegation that they separated on good terms, my point is that he never did leave her, only moving out and continuing to hang around. The night of her murder was clearly in the context of this tumultuous relationship with the controlling Joseph Barnett.

[The Good Michael]

Heinrich,

We know you think Barnett lied, but let's say he didn't and it was he who left Kelly, what would be good enough reasons for him to leave her?

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Why garments, plural? "

Bacause more garments would be more effective to quench the fire.

"Heads I win, tails you lose, basically!"

So what´s new, Ben?

The best,

Fisherman