the key

[Heinrich]

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.

Indeed, I am referring to the knowledge that the window was already broken, SH, and that the deadbolt was not engaged which would not be immediately apparent as the primary latch bolt would have the same effect. In other words, Mary Kelly and Joseph Barnett used the latch exclusively as the key to the secondary bolt was lost. With the latch on, the knob would not turn.

[Sister Hyde]

Indeed, I am referring to the knowledge that the window was already broken, SH, and that the deadbolt was not engaged which would not be immediately apparent as the primary latch bolt would have the same effect. In other words, Mary Kelly and Joseph Barnett used the latch exclusively as the key to the secondary bolt was lost. With the latch on, the knob would not turn.

well, a broken window right next to a door is obvious. now about the knowledge that the deadbolt was engaged, I think there was no need to know either. Of course i'm not saying that just "anyone" passed by and thought "oh let's try and see if it works" (although I've seen kids doing this on cars and stuff for fun, but just a kid messing around wouldn't do so much harm). but somebody wanting to come in could just give it a shot.

[Heinrich]

well, a broken window right next to a door is obvious. now about the knowledge that the deadbolt was engaged, I think there was no need to know either. Of course i'm not saying that just "anyone" passed by and thought "oh let's try and see if it works" (although I've seen kids doing this on cars and stuff for fun, but just a kid messing around wouldn't do so much harm). but somebody wanting to come in could just give it a shot.

Bear in mind, SH, that the Metropolitan Police, unaware of the ease at gaining entry from the outside, resorted to bashing in the door with a pickax.

[Sister Hyde]

Bear in mind, SH, that the Metropolitan Police, unaware of the ease at gaining entry from the outside, resorted to bashing in the door with a pickax.

yes ok, that I keep in mind, the Police was unaware but police agent are not supposed to be used to pry locks open... some crook or criminal or whatever thief on the other hand, would have seen it as routine. and I thought those people were everywhere in the east end. I don't wanna look like I'm saying it was a burglary or anything, but if he slaughtered like he did, it lets us imagine what kind of activities he might have been involved with at first.

[Heinrich]

yes ok, that I keep in mind, the Police was unaware but police agent are not supposed to be used to pry locks open...

Maybe they were not so brainy.
In any event, I believe this strengthens the case against Joseph Barnett.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

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

Now, now, Lechmere...!

All the best,
Fisherman

[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.

[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.

[Lechmere]

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

[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)

[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.

[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 Miller´s 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