the key

[Sister Hyde]

Hi Fish
Welcome back.

I agree with you that Kelly probably holds the key in all of this because I also think that she knew her killer. I also beleive that she was probably done for the night after boltchy and did not venture out again and her killer came to her door.

But you have mentioned that you dont think the killer went there with murderous intentions but that something went wrong. Care to expound on this?

Hi mr Abby (heyhey I won't do the mistake of calling you Missus again)

I also think she knew her killer, of course this is all a matter of personal convictions, I'd say a regular client of hers, then if she was indeed already getting to sleep and turned him down, he got out of his hinges. But I think that's the opinion of a lot of people.

Cam

[Ben]

Ben is most keen to get your agreement I see!

Already got it, Lech!

It ought to be considered beyond reasonable doubt that the son of Richard and Henrietta Fleming was Kelly's Joe.

But Roy is right - we are drifting off-topic somewhat here.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"since you're not usually one to have "inclinations" without a sound basis, I'd say you must have very good reasons for adopting this position"

Gee, thanks, Ben - I wish I did! The truth of the matter, though, is that all I have is a feeling that somebody would have seen the tall ex-plasterer on one of his visits to Kelly, and mentioned it somewhere along the investigation, a sense that the combination of 11 stone and 201 centimeters makes for a VERY thin man, and - let´s face it - an inclination to believe that what we have on Fleming otherwise makes him a very interesting suspect for killing Kelly.

Taken together, that means that I would very much like to see more research done here - and I would not be surprised if it turned up that the Stone asylum records are faulty!

But I would never take that as far as to claim that I have a better case than the ones who believe in the records. I am far too wise and weathered to do that, thank you very much!

Hope this clinches my stand for you! As you well know, I have beliefs in other Ripperological areas too that do not fall into the mainstream category, like for example in the Tabram case. We are all free to hold these beliefs, but I don´t feel at all free to claim that they have more substantiation behind them than other, more traditional if you like, theories. And when we have figures on record, the way we do in the Fleming case, I take even more care to admit that I am holding on to the short end of the straw as it stands. But I don´t mind that, and I quite enjoy holding it together with you - we seldom draw our swords together, so it makes for a refreshing change!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"you have mentioned that you dont think the killer went there with murderous intentions but that something went wrong. Care to expound on this?"

Ripperologist 97! This is not the thread, and at present, I do not have the time. But it´s all in that magazine!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Fisherman
All I meant was that it is conjecture that the Flemming who ended up in the Asylum is the one who was with Mary Kelly and in any case there were two recorded Joe Flemmings/Flemings around and for all we knew there were others.
We should guard against making these things facts when they are not!
For example I would say it’s not an absolute fact that Charles Cross equals Charles Lechmere to be honest – although it is a near certainty."

Point taken - was hoping for conclusive proof, though, but that´s life, I guess ...

I´m out of here presently, but will check back later tonight!

The best,
Fisherman

[Heinrich]

I'm not so sure, Harry. Sam made the point a year or two ago that no contemporaneous evidence has been uncovered to support the notion of Mary Jane's clothing having been neatly folded. The contention appears to have originated with McCormick and has been repeated with such frequency that it has come to be regarded as factual. Personally, I remain open minded about the issue.

Nothing much, if anything, can be surmised from the statement that the clothes were neatly folded other then Mary Kelly had undressed before going to bed on the night of the murder.
Mr. George Bagster Phillips, divisional surgeon of police, stated at the inquest that the "deceased had only an under- linen garment upon her", so no stocking.

[Ben]

I am holding on to the short end of the straw as it stands. But I don´t mind that, and I quite enjoy holding it together with you - we seldom draw our swords together, so it makes for a refreshing change!

Absolutely, Fish.

It's a good end of the straw, and they're two good swords!

It's rather frustrating that the registrar(s) didn't include a "build" category.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi mr Abby (heyhey I won't do the mistake of calling you Missus again)

I also think she knew her killer, of course this is all a matter of personal convictions, I'd say a regular client of hers, then if she was indeed already getting to sleep and turned him down, he got out of his hinges. But I think that's the opinion of a lot of people.

Cam

Hi Sister
I don't think he got out of hinges because he was a regular client and she turned him down. I think he got out of his hinges because he was a serial killer and he targeted her.

I cant help (if it was not barnett) but think that they knew each other and that somehow he knew of her situation and that she was now single and living alone. Nor can I help but think that the killer was licking his chops at the prospect of having his way with a young attractive female for once who had her own (private) place, which in my mind explains the extent of the mutilations and the increase of the mutilations compared to the other victims.

[Lechmere]

Heinrich
Sorry to butt in but I don't think we can surmise from her clothes being folded (neatly or not) and the extent of her undress (whether she had a stocking on or not) that she was prepared for bed for the night.
She could have undressed to dry her clothes while she serviced her client for example. It is not out of the question given various witness testimony) that she was actually killed in the morning and had already had her sleep.

[Lechmere]

"It's a good end of the straw, and they're two good swords!"
As the man said, 'Pass the sick bag Alice'.

[Sister Hyde]

Hi Sister
I don't think he got out of hinges because he was a regular client and she turned him down. I think he got out of his hinges because he was a serial killer and he targeted her.

I cant help (if it was not barnett) but think that they knew each other and that somehow he knew of her situation and that she was now single and living alone. Nor can I help but think that the killer was licking his chops at the prospect of having his way with a young attractive female for once who had her own (private) place, which in my mind explains the extent of the mutilations and the increase of the mutilations compared to the other victims.

Well something made him, maybe he did know her very well and had his eye on her now that she was single, maybe he was just intoxicated and suddenly snapped because she told him off maybe he snapped without her even saying anything (trust me I've been living with some study cases of paranoid schizophrenia and aspergers, sometimes "just nothing" is good enough to make them fly off the handle and do very extreme things), the circumstances of Kelly's murder is always a brain twisting puzzle, more than the others. I did not contribute to this thread before but I kept reading and that key thing has kept my mind wondering. I also think the fact that it was indoor at HER (private) place is the reason to the extent of the slaughter, definitely, without it being connected to any "jealousy" especially, but the fact that she was probably in bed, and that key... surely locks back then were not to hard to pry, and as some say, maybe the killer didn't even bother to knock or anything cause they knew how it works (another dude used to loose his keys) ... but then it's even more disturbing that he took it.In my case I just try all the options, and I think that's pretty much what people here do all the time. But yes, it is likely that she knew him (though I wouldn't throw the stone at Barnett)

[Ben]

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

What a disagreeable bloke...

If you're feeling left out, Fetchers, make a sensible point, and then maybe you can have a sword too! Hooray.

[Abby Normal]

Heinrich
Sorry to butt in but I don't think we can surmise from her clothes being folded (neatly or not) and the extent of her undress (whether she had a stocking on or not) that she was prepared for bed for the night.
She could have undressed to dry her clothes while she serviced her client for example. It is not out of the question given various witness testimony) that she was actually killed in the morning and had already had her sleep.

Hi Lech
Surely it was the killer that burnt the clothes. How does that tally with her going out again in the morning and then being killed/mutilated in the morning?

Seems to me the most likely scenario is that she got cozy with Blotchy and his pail of beer with a fire on a cold rainy night and a song and after there fun she passed out and he eventually left at which point her killer came calling in the middle of the night.

Not nearly enough time in the morning for a trip out and back with the killer, burning of clothes and extensive mutilations befor her body was discovered, don't you think? And why would the killer burn clothes in the morning?

[Heinrich]

.... In respect of the lock, it has to be realised that the door was an old one, perhaps even predating Victorian times, and locks of that time were mostly of the bar type bolts, and although some could have a kind of spring mechanism, most were lever types, and the bar bolts prevented self locking. Barnett speaks of pushing the bolt to disengage from the jamb,and again this might mean a separate bolt to the main lock. Separate that is to the key locking mechanismn. As to 'On the latch',a favourite means of keeping a door closed but not locked was to insert a paper or cardboard wedge between door and jamb. I know the idea of a bar bolt would mean that the killer would have to reach through the window to engage the bolt on leaving, but the few seconds to achieve this would be more than compensated by keeping people from entering easily.One last thing. A self locking spring bolt when engaging, and in the narrow confines of Millers Court would have made a sound like a gun shot. There was a sound of a person leaving the court,but no sound of a door closing.

Thank you for staying with the main subject of this thread, Harry.
Testimony from Joseph Barnett confirmed that the only door to the room had a lock to which there was no key. The door lock was not a dead lock type of mechanism that required a key to secure it, but a spring-loaded latch type mechanism that automatically 'locked' when the door was closed. The lock required a key to open it and allow entry, but not to secure it. But the occupants of number 13 did not need a key to gain entry. Inspector Abberline said at the inquest that; 'Barnett informs me that [the key] has been missing for 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.' Apparently, no one who arrived at the murder scene knew or realized that the door could be opened so easily via the broken window which is why the door was forced in order to gain entry. Barnett surely knew how to unlock the door. If Mary Kelly was indeed alone in her room, in a deep alcohol assisted asleep, then it would be possible for someone with knowledge to lift the door latch by reaching in through the broken window and gain access. By leaving a door "on the latch" would not necessarily require using paper/cardboard to keep the bolt retracted as there was usually a small lever that could be operated for this purpose. As well as the primary self-locking bolt, there would have been a secondary bolt which required a key but since this key was lost, should there have been a secondary bolt on Mary Kelly's door, we can assume that this was never used. Incidentally, as I use such a lock to this day, I can assure you that it will automatically lock rather quietly and nothing like the sound of a gun.


Victorian door latch

[Sister Hyde]

then it would be possible for someone with knowledge to lift the door latch by reaching in through the broken window and gain access.

the knowledge of the lock or the knowledge that Kelly was in there?cause for the lock I think a lot of people had and have this knowledge, my brother and I used to do it on my grandma's door when she was away and this kind of locks are not that common here anymore on single houses, and we were kids (I actually understood how to get it opened from outside before I was 10) so if we assume that this kind of lock was very very common then and there, just anyone can have done it.