the key

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Fisherman - he didn't need to carry out a blitz attack as he was for the first time in a relatively secure location."

I know that, Lechmere. 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.

Most people agree that whatever the Ripper was, he was not a sadist. He did not kill in order to inflict pain. Instead, he took every precaution to ensure as swift death and silence as possible, and THEN he set about what he came for. And yes, it can be argued that the surroundings in Millerīs Court meant that he did not need this swiftness, but it can likewise be argued that his agenda could just the same be fulfilled without dragging things out and offering the victims a chance to cry out: boom, swish ... and that was it.

We also need to take a look at what he did to the others, and that is fairly onesided: immediately subdue, cut the throat, open up and get at the innards. Then he took off, and I really donīt think that we ought to anticipate that he did so because he was repeatedly disturbed after having laid his hands on them innards. I think it is much more likely that he CHOSE to leave once he had gotten to that point, and that is why I compare these deeds to smash-and-grab jobs, jobs that in spite of their swiftness apparently satisfied him. And letīs face it - if he really at some stage had felt the need for more time, he chose the worst possible venues in places like Buckīs Row and Mitre Square. There would have been abandoned houses, doorways, hidden away corners, unguarded ships along the docks, unlocked cellars ... you name it, that would have provided very much better possibilities for a prolonged session with his victim at each occasion. But still we have an impression that he did not care about that - it would even seem that he may have let the women make the choice of venue, instead of optimizing it himself. And if this was so, then he just did not care - any place would do, since he knew that what he wanted to do would very soon be over.

This - amongst other things - is why I think we may well be looking at a behaviour on the killers behalf that differs radically from his earlier exploits. And when a behaviour differs radically, it is more often than not because it answers to very different surrounding factors.
You draw the conclusion that these factors were the sudden offering of relatively secluded surroundings and ample time, and thatīs just fine - that may have been it.
I donīt agree, though, at least not as long as we work from a premise that Kelly picked him up as a punter and brought him home. He was not after traditional sex, and he was not after snuggling up behind a woman in her bed - he was after evisceration and organprocuring. He was not a sadist, he was very practical and economic with the time.
Yet, in this instance it would seem that he waited several minutes, chatting Kelly up, letting her undress, letting her creep into bed and snuggle up in the far corner, making her a bit tricky to reach for.

Thatīs just not my Ripper, quite simply, and thatīs why I do not concur with you over this. That is not to say that you could not be right. Itīs just to say that I donīt think you are.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

The bedrolls positioning, has all the hallmarks of the bed having been made for the day thus during daylight, and the positioning of the stocking from the left leg[ if that is the case] suggests that Mary was attacked whilst dressing/ undressing, but if it was, during the early hours of the morning, the bedding would have been laid out... not rolled..

Thank you, that's a point I had not thought of before and warrants some reflection.

I assume that if the bed had been "made" or was being slept in, it is unlikely that "Jack" would have removed the unwanted bedding so neatly? So I see much logic in your thought process. This might ne a major factor in determining the time of the attack.

As the velvet jacket and bonnet were according to the police ''bloodstained'', and burnt for that reason?, then that would suggest that they were on the bed itself when she was attacked, giving the impression that she was dressing at the time of her demise.

Again, good points to which I shall apply my mind.

Phil

[Lechmere]

Yes I can see the logic of Richard's take on it.

Fisherman - he didn't need to carry out a blitz attack as he was for the first time in a relatively secure location.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The rolled up bedroll, surely is a tip to when the murder was committed, if it was cold enough to light a fire , then it would have been cold enough to warrant the use of blankets..surely?
The bedrolls positioning, has all the hallmarks of the bed having been made for the day thus during daylight, and the positioning of the stocking from the left leg[ if that is the case] suggests that Mary was attacked whilst dressing/ undressing, but if it was, during the early hours of the morning, the bedding would have been laid out... not rolled..
Taking Maxwell's account the most obvious solution is that Kelly was killed after 845am, and that she was either dressing, when attacked ,or undressing awaiting the arrival of someone.
As the velvet jacket and bonnet were according to the police ''bloodstained'', and burnt for that reason?, then that would suggest that they were on the bed itself when she was attacked, giving the impression that she was dressing at the time of her demise.
Why burn those bloody garments?
That would be another thread..
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Actually..

"An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy." (Inspector Frederick G. Abberline at Mary Jane Kelly's inquest)

I believe that the last part of this quotation 'it is quite easy' was only reported in the press, and is not in the inquest testimony. A little embellishment, possibly to suggest the impression that the murderer put his hand through the window himself.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"it beggars belief,in my opinion,that just anyone would have been testing doors and windows at random in that tiny court,looking for a woman to disembowel."

It is and remains the most far-fetched guess of them all, Harry, agreed!

"On the off chance that it was not a self locking bolt,and had to be engaged manually on leaving,I would consider that the killer had to be someone with intimate knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the room and it's occupant,on that particular night,and that Kelly was a selected victim,and not a random pick up."

Either (1) Kelly brought him back off the streets, (2) he let himself in or (3) was let in by Kelly. If we work from the assumption that he as the Ripper and not another killer altogether, then if (1) applies a formerly very blitz-minded man suddenly took the time to sit down and wait as Kelly undressed, rolled up the bedroll and snuggled into bed before he made his move. I find that suggestion challenging, to say the least. If (2) applies, he either was trying doors and windows randomly, which is rather a silly suggestion, just like you point out - or he KNEW who was to be found inside room 13 and how to gain access to that room. If (3) applies, he was either in the happy-go-lucky door-knocking business, having given up the possibility to find another victim out in the open streets - or he came to Millerīs Court with the expressive aim to see Kelly.
The rolled-up bedroll, the undressed Kelly, the lit fire - these circumstances tally better with suggestions (2) and (3) than with (1). And they both more or less predispose a previous connection of some sort inbetween killer and victim, I find.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Nothing wrong with theorising,whether it's one day or one hundred years hence.It is whether we use the correct information.As the only source of what kind of lock it was,a newspaper claims it to be of the spring type,which in itself is rather vague as there were spring types which were not self locking.As Heinrich so rightly points out,Joe Barnett speaks of pushing the bolt,so as the jamb would have been nearest the window,the lock would have been disengaged from either the jamb itself or an attachment on the jamb.As to whether anyone would have been aware of this means to gain access,it beggars belief,in my opinion,that just anyone would have been testing doors and windows at random in that tiny court,looking for a woman to disembowel. On the off chance that it was not a self locking bolt,and had to be engaged manually on leaving,I would consider that the killer had to be someone with intimate knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the room and it's occupant,on that particular night,and that Kelly was a selected victim,and not a random pick up.

[Heinrich]

- or the door was locked.
I would guess that even a nascent polce force would be able to open a latched door.

"An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy." (Inspector Frederick G. Abberline at Mary Jane Kelly's inquest)

[Lechmere]

- or the door was locked.
I would guess that even a nascent polce force would be able to open a latched door.

[Sister Hyde]

Surely McCarthy or his man Thomas Bowyer would have known what sort of lock it was and would have been practiced at gaining entry had it been possible without breaking down their own door.
I would suggest they would know better than us. Isn’t this just another example of people theorising over 120 years later and presuming to think they know better than the landlord, his agent and the police while they waited outside the actual door for several hours.

Well that would be my first bet too but obviously they were not trained for that since they forced the door.

[Heinrich]

....Isn’t this just another example of people theorising over 120 years later

Yes, it is the purpose of this site, Lechmere.

.... and presuming to think they know better than the landlord, his agent and the police while they waited outside the actual door for several hours.

For all their superior knowledge and experience, the Metropolitan Police failed to protect Mary Kelly and let her killer get away with murder. None of us could do worse.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"As the man said, 'Pass the sick bag Alice'."

Now, now, Lechmere...!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Surely McCarthy or his man Thomas Bowyer would have known what sort of lock it was and would have been practiced at gaining entry had it been possible without breaking down their own door.
I would suggest they would know better than us. Isn’t this just another example of people theorising over 120 years later and presuming to think they know better than the landlord, his agent and the police while they waited outside the actual door for several hours.

[Rubyretro]

I'm especially busy at the moment, and although I read Casebook with my morning coffee, don't have time to join in much...still, I have to find time to
add my two penny's worth to this discussion..

As some of you undoubtedly know, I recently followed the Court case of
serial killer Danilo Restivo, an italian living in the UK, who murdered and mutilated a woman in a very similar manner to the murder of MJK ( he was an aquaintance, who got into her home, killed her and then cut her throat, mutilatating her by cutting off her breasts, and posed the body in a strikingly similar way to that of Mary Kelly).

Just one 'coincidence' is that Restivo's victim, Heather Barnett, had lost her keys a week before, and it was certainly Restivo who had stolen them (he had also lifted some keys to kill a previous victim).

I am stating categorically here that I absolutely don't think that because Restivo acted in a certain way, then Kelly's killer must certainly have acted in the same way.

At the same time, I think that it throws out of the window assertions that Kelly's killer couldn't or wouldn't have stolen her keys in advance, and waited
for the right -planned- opportunity to use them.

It is interesting to add that Barnett strongly suspected Restivo of having stolen her keys -but still opened the door and let him in on the morning of her death (she had changed the lock), and Elisa Claps (a previous victim) had been afraid of Restivo stalking her -but still went to meet him lured by a 'present'. Mary Kelly, of course, had been afraid of 'someone' before her death..and that might be someone whom she suspected of stealing her key.
But not of being a murderer.

Of course, if Mary Kelly still took in 'clients' when she was being kept by Joe
Barnett, then she might not of wanted to tell him in what circumstances the
keys had gone missing. She might have felt safer having girlfriends sleep over until her immediate worry had passed , of course..

What I'm getting at, is that if MJK's killer had the key to her door, then
it is immaterial what sort of lock she had, whether she'd locked the door or not, or whether he would risk sticking his arm through the broken window pane; He just had to bide his time and wait for circumstances -a rainy night,
the boyfriend moving out, initial worries forgotten..etc

I can think of no reason to suspect Joe Barnett of being Kelly's murderer...but someone else could have held the key to her room, and used it.

[Sister Hyde]

not especially "brainy" but... a bit more innocent than the rest ahahah (well at least they were supposed to). I've never ruled Barnett out for Kelly's murder (ruled him out as the "Ripper" though), but to me it doesn't strengthen his case, just any "low life" would have known how to open it.