the key

[Heinrich]

Actually two people corroborate her evidence.

Could you provide the references please, Curious?

[curious]

If you haven't been able to find it within 24 hours, I shall be glad to.

However, more than anyone I've ever seen, you need to familiarize yourself with the case.

If you look, you will find it.

[Heinrich]

If you haven't been able to find it within 24 hours, I shall be glad to.
However, more than anyone I've ever seen, you need to familiarize yourself with the case.
If you look, you will find it.

That's alright, Curious. I joined the Casebook to learn what I could about Jack the Ripper and have dialog with other members. I asked a simple question of you so that I can be better informed but instead of having the courtesy to share the information, you resorted to insult. I will not see your post in 24 hours as I am placing you on my ignore list.

[Rubyretro]

Curious -I'd love to see H's view of the boards when he's put everyone
on his 'ignore' list !
No one will be allowed to disagree with him ! -or rather he will banish anyone that does.
Heinrich not the controlling type ? Hmmn...

It's certainly a funny way of learning about the case.

[curious]

Curious -I'd love to see H's view of the boards when he's put everyone
on his 'ignore' list !
No one will be allowed to disagree with him ! -or rather he will banish anyone that does.
Heinrich not the controlling type ? Hmmn...

It's certainly a funny way of learning about the case.

And funny that's he's allowed to be mocking and insulting, but no one else is. I frankly didn't consider my answer nasty, just a challenge to him to take his blinders off and learn something.

Interesting that he joined Casebook to learn, but was adamant that he already knows everything and will discuss nothing different from his narrow viewpoint.

Oh, well . . . I knew once I presented my two people and perhaps three (in sort of a negative corroboration) he'd eject them from the case because they don't fit with his re-construction.

I think I consider being on his ignore list a high compliment.

curious

[Robert]

Hi Heinrich

Bruce Paley, Leanne Perry, Richard Nunweek and Shannon Christopher were fairly staunch Barnettists, but they were wishy-washy ditherers compared with you.

[curious]

Curious -I'd love to see H's view of the boards when he's put everyone
on his 'ignore' list !
No one will be allowed to disagree with him ! -or rather he will banish anyone that does.
Heinrich not the controlling type ? Hmmn...

It's certainly a funny way of learning about the case.

Actually, Ruby, I've been going DUH at myself! It was not about me being rude to Henrich (he had actually done almost exactly the same thing to me earlier), but it was about his refusal to even look at anything that might disprove his set-in-concrete theory.

If I write something, he just refutes it and does not have to think about it. However, if it is something he finds himself . . . . .

Just his usual refusal to even look or see possibilities.

curious

[Heinrich]

Curious -I'd love to see H's view of the boards when he's put everyone
on his 'ignore' list !
No one will be allowed to disagree with him ! -or rather he will banish anyone that does.

As of today, Rubyretro, only one person is on my "ignore" list. That is reserved only for those who make posts intended to belittle, offend, or otherwise want only to condescend. No one in their right mind would willingly visit a social network where there is an expectation of being insulted by a total stranger.
By the way, it is not necessary to write of me in the third person as I am still here, for the present. Although we have had differences of opinion about the evidence against Joseph Barnett, I have, I believe, addressed all and every objection you had regarding my interpretation. To disagree without being disagreeable is not hard to do.

Hi Heinrich
Bruce Paley, Leanne Perry, Richard Nunweek and Shannon Christopher were fairly staunch Barnettists, but they were wishy-washy ditherers compared with you.

Kind of you to say so, Robert. I did read Bruce Paley's book some years ago and it was about the best researched one on the subject of Joseph Barnett that I had come across. Undoubtedly he has influenced my thinking. It was his mention of the lost key (the subject of this thread) which got me thinking that Joseph Barnett, with his easy access to 13, Miller's Court, bears special scrutiny. And the more I learned about him and Mary Kelly, the more I suspected him above other names and phantoms.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

As of today, Rubyretro, only one person is on my "ignore" list. That is reserved only for those [/QUOTE...

Congrats to you, Curious ! You have joined an extremely elite club. I'm really miffed not to be worth having as a member.

No one in their right mind would willingly visit a social network where there is an expectation of being insulted by a total stranger.

I have some sympathy here..but that is the way with Casebook, and if you are really interested in learning about the case then you will just have to put up with it...and not take it so seriously as to 'ignore' people that want to help you. Lighten up, Heindrich..

By the way, it is not necessary to write of me in the third person as I am still here, for the present

.
don't resort to threats..There are some burly men here (I hope ? I'm looking over my shoulder as I type this ..)

Although we have had differences of opinion about the evidence against Joseph Barnett, I have, I believe, addressed all and every objection you had regarding my interpretation. To disagree without being disagreeable is not hard to do.

You dismiss rather than address. Debates are fun -if you're convinced of your point of view, then try and answer the arguments rationally rather than just
putting down your opponent. Consider changing your mind -not a weakness but a strength- if you think that your adversary has a better argument.

Kind of you to say so, Robert. I did read Bruce Paley's book some years ago and it was about the best researched one on the subject of Joseph Barnett that I had come across. Undoubtedly he has influenced my thinking. It was his mention of the lost key (the subject of this thread) which got me thinking that Joseph Barnett, with his easy access to 13, Miller's Court, bears special scrutiny. And the more I learned about him and Mary Kelly, the more I suspected him above other names and phantoms.

And the fact remains that Kelly's room had no security at all, and although
one might have (arguably) have needed special knowledge to get in, given that Mary was a gregarious prostitute, the field is wide open on that account.

[curious]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;186950]

Congrats to you, Curious ! You have joined an extremely elite club. I'm really miffed not to be worth having as a member.

Thank you, Ruby,

It's actually a very easy club to join.

You have only to mirror his attitude, do as he as done to you, but more damning still -- try to force him to look at something with his own eyes.

Whoever printed that nonsense about mirroring someone to make them like you didn't know what he was talking about.

[Heinrich]

And the fact remains that Kelly's room had no security at all ...

Not so, Rubyretro, there was a sturdy spring lock necessitating the owner of the property to bash-in the door with a pickax handle.

given that Mary was a gregarious prostitute, the field is wide open on that account.

With the documented evidence we have, it is more sensible to believe Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly rather than any Tom, Dick, or Harry.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Not so, Rubyretro, there was a sturdy spring lock necessitating the owner of the property to bash-in the door with a pickax handle

.

A lock that was only worth something if it was locked when the killer arrived outside the room, if Mary didn't let him into the room herself,
or if he wasn't in possession of the lost key.

Not to mention the broken window enabling the lock to be opened from the outside.

Any known or unknown suspect could of got in by one of those means -take your pick as to which you think most likely (although, the most unlikely method might be the true one). It's only guesswork, because we will never know.

It is impossible to build a whole theory on who was JTR based on entry to
Kelly's room.

[Ausgirl]

Earlier in the thread, it was put forward that the murderer could have simply closed the door behind him in order to lock it. I've lived in some very old houses in this country (late 1800's - early 1900's) where the lock will do exactly that, so there wasn't a need to lock it from the inside, usually. (edit - and sometimes a plain sliding bolt above or below the lock as well).

I'm simply too far away to conveniently wander over to London and check this for myself - but there has to be some heritage buildings somewhere in the area in which spring locks like the one Kelly had might have survived? Perhaps there's some local lock-obsessed historian somewhere, who might shed light on the probable mechanism used? It's worth exploring more directly (and conclusively), I think, since it seems a key (pun fully intended) point in establishing why the door was locked behind the killer.

As to gaining entry, there's a dozen scenarios I can think of immediately as to how the killer got in without a key - some admittedly more probable than others but then, if all human action was limited to what is foreseeably and neatly 'probable' we'd not be surprised by each other so very often.

I agree, this is currently far too flimsy a point from which to make any sound conclusions. However, if the locks of the period generally used in those sorts of houses could -only- be locked from inside with a key -- different story.

[harry]

Ausgirl,
Some locks were spring,some lever,and some spring lever.It is not known which type was on the door to Kelly's room,not officially that is.Some Churches still have locks that can only be opened and secured with a key.With luck you might find one.

[Heinrich]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;187004]

....
It is impossible to build a whole theory on who was JTR based on entry to
Kelly's room.

Obviously.

Earlier in the thread, it was put forward that the murderer could have simply closed the door behind him in order to lock it. I've lived in some very old houses in this country (late 1800's - early 1900's) where the lock will do exactly that, so there wasn't a need to lock it from the inside, usually.

See Post 194 for an illustration of a typical self-locking spring lock used in Victorian times.