the key

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Please, Fisherman, if you want to be treated with civility and avoid one of those stoppy melt-downs of mine, don't tell me what I've been "taught". The corner of Mitre Square was very dark, and I'm well aware of Sequeira's comments that it was sufficient for the killer to have performed the mutilations, something I have never disputed. The central bullet point remains that darkness was obviously a non-issue for the ripper. "

My turn to apologize - your seeing red apparently produced my sarcastic side.
But I will steadfastly point out that, just like you say, that the darkness was a non-issue for the Ripper, and combined with Sequieras words, I think we can conclude that this speaks not of any total lack of light. We´ve both been to the square, we both know how small it is, and I think we both realize that the gas lamp in the square would have given some light, as would arguably also other ambient lightsources. I have always felt that the darkness of Mitre Square has been exaggerated, which is why I try to make a point of this. I could have made it nicer, though. Sorry.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

And how could it be unrealistic to suggest that a fire that may or may not have been lit 11.45, would have been out and gone at around four hours later?

Because it is not consistent with the crime scene evidence, Fisherman, at least not as far as I'm concerned. Clothing burns very slowly, and I have always regarded it as somewhat unlikely that the killer himself was responsible for the fueling of the fire with clothing. Surely, if that were the case, he would have added Kelly's own clothes to the mix. The fact that Kelly would not have been in possession of a great deal of "normal" fuel strengthens the suggestion that she obtained it by other means, i.e. in the form of rags or unwanted clothing donated to her by laundress friends.

This was the "free fuel", and it undoubtedly smoldered throughout the night. While the resulting light would not have been great, it would certainly have been sufficient to enable an intruder to make out Kelly's location in the room and the positioning of the furniture. To an outsider's view, such as Cox's, the room would have conveyed a lights-out impression whereas in reality the candle had been blown out and the fire had died down. In addition, and despite my belief in the "intruder" scenario, I think we're both in agreement that the killer may have been familiar with the layout of the dwelling already, which would have aided movement.

"but I am equally sure that the light MAY have come from the candle only. The possibility is there, and no matter how much and what we THINK, that possibility won´t go away."

Possible, but very unlikely, in my opinion.

It is also why I think that the killer, after having cut Kelly´s neck, got out of the bed and fuelled the fire with what he could find, clothes being among it, to enable him to see better what he did

It wouldn't have worked, Fish. Clothing doesn't give off any appreciable light when in burns, as discussed on other threads. In addition, the killer had already demonstrated that he required little light with which to work by.

Apology accepted, incidentally. I still maintain that I'm not exaggerating the extent of darkness in Mitre Square, though. As Philip Sugden points out:

"The lamp-post was sixty-five feet away. And, since the corner of Mr. Taylor's shop interposed between the murder site and a "lantern lamp" on the corner of the Walter Williams & Co. warehouse in Mitre Street, the spot was plunged into shadow after lighting up time."

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

You can "guess" whatever you like, mate, but there was certainly no lamp "hanging outside Kelly's door", ....

There is an unwritten expectation that when members make asserted claims that they at least are up to par with the case evidence. This is the second time in two days...

Quote:
"What hat had he ? - A round hard billycock.
Long or short hair ? - I did not notice. He had a blotchy face, and full carrotty moustache.
The chin was shaven ? - Yes. A lamp faced the door.
Did you see them go into her room ? - Yes; I said "Good night, Mary," and she turned round and banged the door."
Daily Telegraph, 13 Nov. 1888.

What filthy nonsense is this, Jon? On what grounds do you assert that "the idea of an intruder" is a "modern invention"?

Simply that the police made no consideration along the lines of looking for a burglar or even offering evidence at the inquest consistent with there being a break-in at #13 that night.
This is really very simple when you study up on the case.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Oh, for goodness' sake.

Jon, I was the first on this thread to point out that there was a lamp opposite the door*, but it hung outside Julia Venturney room's and not Kelly's, as you claimed in a recent post.

Simply that the police made no consideration along the lines of looking for a burglar or even offering evidence at the inquest consistent with there being a break-in at #13 that night.

What do you mean "looking" for a burglar. Do eviscerating burglars "look" any different from eviscerating prostitutes' clients? The inquest evidence is perfectly consistent "with there being a break-in at #13 that night". At the very least, there was certainly nothing "inconsistent" with such a scenario that emerged at the inquest.

*I also wonder if the light outside room #1 (occupied by Julia Vanturney and directly opposite Kelly's room) might have provided temporary illumination for the killer as he opened the door, enabling him to register the location of Kelly, the bed, furniture etc.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Because it is not consistent with the crime scene evidence, Fisherman, at least not as far as I'm concerned. Clothing burns very slowly, and I have always regarded it as somewhat unlikely that the killer himself was responsible for the fueling of the fire with clothing."

By whom? Not, I take it, by the people who would realize that Kelly was in no position to burn clothes? Less so, I would imagine, if the clothes belonged to somebody else than herself?
Add to this that clothes more often than not put fires out instead of fuelling them. That is why we throw blankets on fires to put them out.

"Surely, if that were the case, he would have added Kelly's own clothes to the mix. "

There had been a fierce fire, it was said. Why add Kelly´s clothes? To make it fiercer?
Try, instead, if you will, another angle that just crossed my mind - the killer fuelled the fire to see what he was doing, and at some stage, he realized that the roaring fire may attract unwanted attention, so he threw the garments on the fire to DECREASE it, turning it to less of a giveaway.

Or is that illogical and not in accord with the evidence too?

" I still maintain that I'm not exaggerating the extent of darkness in Mitre Square, though. As Philip Sugden points out:

"The lamp-post was sixty-five feet away. And, since the corner of Mr. Taylor's shop interposed between the murder site and a "lantern lamp" on the corner of the Walter Williams & Co. warehouse in Mitre Street, the spot was plunged into shadow after lighting up time.""

You don´t give up easily, I´ll give you that. What I won´t give you, though, is any recognition that "shadow" equals "extreme darkness". You will have to do a lot better than that, I´m afraid!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I also wonder if the light outside room occupied by Julia Vanturney and directly opposite Kelly's room might have provided temporary illumination for the killer as he opened the door, enabling him to register the location of Kelly, the bed, furniture etc."

Cox, from the inquest:

" He had a blotchy face, and full carrotty moustache.
[Coroner] The chin was shaven ? - Yes. A LAMP FACED THE DOOR.
[Coroner] Did you see them go into her room ? - Yes; I said "Good night, Mary," and she turned round and banged the door.
[Coroner] Had he anything in his hands but the can ? - No.
[Coroner] Did she say anything ? - She said "Good night, I am going to have a song." As I went in she sang "A violet I plucked from my mother's grave when a boy." I remained a quarter of an hour in my room and went out. Deceased was still singing at one o'clock when I returned. I remained in the room for a minute to warm my hands as it was raining, and went out again. She was singing still, and I returned to my room at three o'clock. The HE LIGHT WAS THEN OUT and there was no noise."

In the testimony recorded from the inquest, Cox does not mention any light inside Kelly´s room, but only the one from the lamp. The logical thing would therefore be to accept that when she says "the light was then out", she refers to the lamp in the court. So in all probability, it would not have helped the killer if he got going around 4 AM.

Then again, the Times writes: "It was raining, and witness returned home at 3:10 a.m., and the light in deceased's room was then out and there was no noise."

One wonders who got it right. But either way, there was no light coming from Kelly´s room. We can tell that much.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
When I said:
“The clear assumption was that someone went back with her and did it.”
I was referring to assumptions that were made in 1888 – in other words if you read how the case was reported it seems obvious that the police at the time assumed the killer accessed 13 Miller’s Court in company with Mary Kelly, rather than the murderer being an intruder.
This should have been clear to you as the previous sentence read:
“The ‘intruder’ idea is I would suggest at the very least not contemporary.”

The reality of the Bundy case is quite irrelevant to how the police saw the Ripper case at the time.

[Wickerman]

The reality of the Bundy case is quite irrelevant to how the police saw the Ripper case at the time.

Quite right, the 'intruder' hypothesis requires this leopard to change his spots.
It also requires him to know there were no other lodgers.
To know that there was a woman inside alone.
To know that no visitors were expected.
To know that there was no interconnecting doors to the rest of the house.
Or, ...maybe he was just very lucky.

Kelly did not have a long list of clients while at this address, she moved in with Barnett.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

By whom? Not, I take it, by the people who would realize that Kelly was in no position to burn clothes?

I don't know who these "people" are, but in asserting that Kelly was not in a position to burn clothes, they are espousing dreadful nonsense. The fact that Harvey brought them over in the first place should inform us that they were likely to remain there and serve as some sort of gift or donation to Kelly. Why else would she bring them over?

There was unlikely to have been a "fierce fire", by the way. This factoid has been doing the rounds for too long, has very little in the way of supportive evidence, and hasn't receieved much mainstream spoort in recent years.

"so he threw the garments on the fire to DECREASE it, turning it to less of a giveaway"

Why garments, plural? One of the shirts would have been sufficient to extinguish this "fierce" fire that probably never existed. The fact that all of them were used suggests very strongly that they were used as fuel, probably for the purpose of creating warmth rather than light.

What I won´t give you, though, is any recognition that "shadow" equals "extreme darkness". You will have to do a lot better than that, I´m afraid!

No, I don't think I do actually. I'm not particularly concerned with satisfying your criteria for determining what constitutes "very dark" or "extemely dark", but we're talking about an entirely unlit corner, cast in shadow at night time in Victorian London. As I've observed elsewhere, it pays to use one's imagination.

The logical thing would therefore be to accept that when she says "the light was then out", she refers to the lamp in the court. So in all probability, it would not have helped the killer if he got going around 4 AM.

But then this would mean there could have been a light in Kelly's room, if she was referring to the lamp outside being "out" and not Kelly's room.

Then again, the Times writes: "It was raining, and witness returned home at 3:10 a.m., and the light in deceased's room was then out and there was no noise."

But then this would mean that the lamp outside could still have bathed the room in temporary light as the killer entered it.

Heads I win, tails you lose, basically!

Just tweaking your bum, Fisherman.

[Ben]

I was referring to assumptions that were made in 1888 – in other words if you read how the case was reported it seems obvious that the police at the time assumed the killer accessed 13 Miller’s Court in company with Mary Kelly

I don't see too much evidence of this, Lechmere.

Certainly, there were police officials who believed that Blotchy was the killer, and he did enter the court "in company with Mary Kelly".

That's understandable.

The reality of the Bundy case may not have a direct bearing on the 1888 police's perceptions regarding the killer, but it is of interest to us today, inasmuch as it informs us that different crime venues often call for a different type of approach.

"It also requires him to know there were no other lodgers.
To know that there was a woman inside alone.
To know that no visitors were expected."

This sort of thing is often established beforehand through discreet surveillance of the building and the surrounding locality, Jon, as I hope you'll know already from studying other serial offenders and their pre-crime approaches, particularly when their intended targets were people living in their own homes. Bundy, Rader and Napper all spring to mind here.

[harry]

If it was so easy to open the door,why was it forced.Not neccessarily because the physical act of doing so was not easy,reference Aberlines remark,and he was speaking in hindsight,but maybe because of a misunderstanding at the time.It was simply overlooked.All attention when looking through the window would have been focussed on the body,and when the order to open the door was given,after a fairly long wait,those that complied with the order,not knowing of an easier method,did it the best way they knew,forced it.The bolt would not have been visible from outside,the hole in the pane was not big enough to put a head through to observe it.The only odd thing that strikes me,is that knowing from the first that the door had to be opened,they didn't send for a locksmith.

[Rubyretro]

Harry - when the question of why the Police didn't reach through the window to open the door, came up on a different thread, someone suggested that the table loaded with bits of flesh was placed between the window and the door when the killer left (on purpose). The photographer moved the table close to the bed, to get everything into the photos and out of his way.

This seems a credible explanation to me.

[harry]

Ruby,
That might be if the photographer was first into the room,but was he?. Even so,he either didn't notice the bolt was catched,or he failed to report so.I have a book in my possession that say's a photographer went in and out by the window,but I doubt the truth of it.

[Heinrich]

....
The only odd thing that strikes me,is that knowing from the first that the door had to be opened,they didn't send for a locksmith.

The police had the owner of the property (John McCarthy) with them and they rightly expected him to provide access for them. Clearly, he was unaware how easy it would have been to lift the latch so he bashed it in with a pickax handle. Joseph Barnett, on the other hand, is the one who later told the police about the trick of lifting the latch which adds to the evidence against him.

Harry - when the question of why the Police didn't reach through the window to open the door, came up on a different thread, someone suggested that the table loaded with bits of flesh was placed between the window and the door when the killer left (on purpose). The photographer moved the table close to the bed, to get everything into the photos and out of his way.
This seems a credible explanation to me.

Why would Joseph Barnett have moved the table to block the door before exiting through the window? The door was self-locking which would deter all but the most determined visitor from entering.
The police would not have permitted a photographer into the room before they had gained access.

Ruby,
That might be if the photographer was first into the room,but was he?. Even so,he either didn't notice the bolt was catched,or he failed to report so.I have a book in my possession that say's a photographer went in and out by the window,but I doubt the truth of it.

The photographer would have been called for only after the police had inspected the crime scene and they got in by the door.
By then, the photographer could have moved furniture to set up a composition. I think he must have moved the bed with the mutilated corpse of Mary Kelly on it so as to get a view from her right side which would otherwise have been impossible had the bed been up against the partition wall as described by Mr. George Bagster Phillips, divisional surgeon of police who had been called to the scene. Interestingly, at the inquest, it was noted that "The position of the two tables was not altered" but the same was not said of the bed.


View of the crime scene taken from the right side of the bed.

[Wickerman]

This sort of thing is often established beforehand through discreet surveillance of the building and the surrounding locality, Jon, as I hope you'll know already from studying other serial offenders and their pre-crime approaches, particularly when their intended targets were people living in their own homes. Bundy, Rader and Napper all spring to mind here.

Ben, you cannot seriously expect a killer to casually walk up and down the passage and around the court without being seen, for how long?
Which room was your intruder supposed to be watching, the one with windows blacked out by blinds/curtain/coat, and closed door?
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?

The most assured way that any killer will have some confidence that 'they' will not be interupted is for him to gain entry as a client.
A surprised break-in is fraught with all manner of uncertainties in an enclosed court with neighbours coming and going at all hours.
And, unless he has been inside before, he is unlikely to expect a backroom to a house to have internal doors blocked off. An intruder/stranger would not know this.

A client will be able to determine all those uncertainties I listed after he gained legitimate entry, but more importantly 'before' he decided to act out his crime. We should not address each crime as if this was his sole intended victim that night. By this I mean this killer could have approached any number of women on the street before he found one where the curcumstances were acceptable for a quick kill and clean getaway. This should also apply to Kelly. This killer may have been in another room with another prostitute where circumstances were not conducive for him to act out his crime, so he might just go through the sex act and leave.

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. Remember, she had only been unattached for a matter of days, and had another prostitute living with her until Wednesday.
That leaves very little room for suggesting a previous client was invloved.


Harry.
I think Heinrich got it right, the police would not entertain any convoluted means of entry, they will simply break in the door. Naturaly they would give the owner of the property the option of gaining entry first.
Perhaps they suggested that McCarthy opens the door immediately, by any necessary means, or they will. Having said that I doubt McCarthy will smash the door to splinters, if he was anything like Rigsby (Rising Damp) he would just ease it open causing as little damage as possible.
Although time was not of the essence, I doubt very much they would all stand around waiting for a locksmith to show up and then fiddle & faff about for god knows how long.

Regards, Jon S.