the key

[Batman]

Is Barnett the only source for the missing key?

There is a mystery of the key topic here https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4921/6293.html but it seems to fail to mention that they had to break down the door to get it.

I at once forced the door with a pickaxe, and we entered the room.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/st._james_gazette/881110.html

It seems it was a catch lock on the inside.

The door was fastened, not that it had been locked from the inside, but having a catch lock, the person who had gone out last had merely slammed the door behind him, and it had thus become fastened.

The lock of the door was a spring one, and the murderer apparently took the key away with him when he left, as it cannot be found.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881110.html

I can not find a source for the next claim:

In the meantime, the window frame was removed and a police photographer took several pictures of the remains, one of which survives to this day, testament to the demented savagery of the man who called himself Jack the Ripper.

Paley, Bruce. Jack the Ripper: The Simple Truth (p. 149). Cox & Wyman Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Paley also indicates that Barnett was brought to scene to observe the body through that same window.

JOE BARNETT'S STATEMENT.
He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half. He saw the body by peeping through the window.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

Abberline at the inquest replies...

[Coroner] Can you give any reason why they were burnt ? - I can only imagine that it was to make a light for the man to see what he was doing. There was only one small candle in the room, on the top of a broken wine-glass. 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. There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it.

I can only guess at some point Barnett heard that the killer had the key. Since he likely had it, he didn't want the connection, so claimed it had been stolen. Yet he had to come up with a reason for how they could get in and out. Abberline said it was quite easy to move back the latch. Yet we have pick-axes knocking open doors, a window frame out, and nobody including the person who knew the trick to it, showing it at the time.

If you saw bodycam footage of that today, and learned all those facts with a running commentary, you couldn't fail to notice how dodgy this whole missing key story is. Yes it is easy to lock a latch type door behind you by closing it, but it is also easier to use this simple easy hand through the window (they are all looking through) method to open it and not a pick-axe.

[Batman]

1. No mention of special methods to enter No.13
2. Contradiction of who closed the door. Cox says MJK banged the door and then a moment later says the man did it.


Mary Ann Cox stated: I live at No. 5 Room, Miller's-court. It is the last house on the left-hand side of the court. I am a widow, and get my living on the streets. I have known the deceased for eight or nine months as the occupant of No. 13 Room. She was called Mary Jane. I last saw her alive on Thursday night, at a quarter to twelve, very much intoxicated.
[Coroner] Where was this ? - In Dorset-street. She went up the court, a few steps in front of me.
[Coroner] Was anybody with her ? - A short, stout man, shabbily dressed. He had on a longish coat, very shabby, and carried a pot of ale in his hand.
[Coroner] What was the colour of the coat ? - A dark coat.
[Coroner] What hat had he ? - A round hard billycock.
[Coroner] Long or short hair ? - I did not notice. 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 light was then out and there was no noise.
[Coroner] Did you go to sleep ? - No; I was upset. I did not undress at all. I did not sleep at all. I must have heard what went on in the court. I heard no noise or cry of "Murder," but men went out to work in the market.
[Coroner] How many men live in the court who work in Spitalfields Market ? - One. At a quarter- past six I heard a man go down the court. That was too late for the market.
[Coroner] From what house did he go ? - I don't know.
[Coroner] Did you hear the door bang after him ? - No.
[Coroner] Then he must have walked up the court and back again? - Yes.
[Coroner] It might have been a policeman ? - It might have been.
[Coroner] What would you take the stout man's age to be ? - Six-and-thirty.
[Coroner] Did you notice the colour of his trousers ? - All his clothes were dark.
[Coroner] Did his boots sound as if the heels were heavy ? - There was no sound as he went up the court.
[Coroner] Then you think that his boots were down at heels ? - He made no noise.
[Coroner] What clothes had Mary Jane on ? - She had no hat; a red pelerine and a shabby skirt.
[Coroner] You say she was drunk ? - I did not notice she was drunk until she said good night. The man closed the door. By the Jury: There was a light in the window, but I saw nothing, as the blinds were down. I should know the man again, if I saw him.
By the Coroner: I feel certain if there had been the cry of "Murder" in the place I should have heard it; there was not the least noise. I have often seen the woman the worse for drink.

[curious]

Hello Curious,

Sorry this took so long. The reference to Annie buying rings "from a black man" can be found in Sugdens "The Complete History of JTR", paperback, page 93.

Cheers,
C4

Very interesting. Will have to check that out.

Thanks.

[curious4]

"Posh" Jack

Hello Ben,

Well, having surgical skills wouldn´t necessarily mean you were dressed up to the nines. Also some slummers and do-gooders would dress down while visiting the East End - not into vermin-ridden rags, of course, but something less elegant than they usually wore. Although, skimming through the press reports, I came across a report in the Evening Standard of 11 Sept. 1888 of an 80-year-old man having his gold watch and chain stolen by a gang in Hanbury Street, so presumably some people were better-dressed than others.

Best wishes,
C4

[curious4]

Rings from a black man

Hello Curious,

Sorry this took so long. The reference to Annie buying rings "from a black man" can be found in Sugdens "The Complete History of JTR", paperback, page 93.

Cheers,
C4

[Monty]

I am unfamiliar with the term, "convicting" evidence, Monty, but siffice it to say there are none so blind as those who will not see.



It is not nice to hijack a thread about the missing key and Joseph Barnett by engaging in personal insults for your own entertainment while avoiding the discussion of the conclusions based on the evidence.



Since the testimony regarding Joseph Barnett about his rows with Mary Kelly, his attempts to control her life, his reason for leaving her no more than ten days before her dead body was found, his admission that he was with her on the night of the murder, being the last person who admits being seen in her company, his familiarity with the ease of access to 13 Miller's Court, and so on, is all provided by Joseph Barnett himself, the hearsay rule does not apply as he is the declarant (not quoting another) and such statements are admissible in court since all this testimony is inculpatory.



A good deal but not all.

'none so blind as those who will not see.'

You are full of ironies Heinrich.

It was you who stated the evidence on Barnett was convicting....that is convicting evidence.

Now to state it is I who hijacked the thread smacks of hypocrasy. Do you really want me to list the number of posts by you which force this theory of yours?

Tell you what, I'll leave you be to peddle your theory, enjoy youself. I'm off to pull teeth, as that is more pleasurable.

Monty

[Heinrich]

Oh, no no. This is off-topic and I apologise, but I'm somewhat disturbed by the suggestion that Casebook is a place to discuss only suspects, that those who wish to discuss other matters are 'in the wrong place.'

Although I was falsely accused of claiming that Casebook is only to discuss suspects, Claire, I do hold that threads in the "Suspects" section should remain on topic. It is how the forum is organized. Members who claim that it is impossible to identify a suspect by examining the documentary evidence and using our wits would pay the rest of us a courtesy by refraining expressing mocking skepticism of members who are making a good faith attempt to solve the mysteries.

Really, I'm not picking on you, Heinrich, but this is the one matter where I am quite adamant: the lives of the victims, and those around them, are at least as important as the twazzock who murdered them.

There is a section on "Victims", Claire where I have posted on Mary Kelly.

Oh, and Barnett weren't the flamin ripper, fer pity's sake. Poor b@stard.

By all means, Claire, do tell us why you believe Joseph Barnett is innocent. Perhaps there is some evidence overlooked by myself and perhaps others.

[claire]

Oh, no no. This is off-topic and I apologise, but I'm somewhat disturbed by the suggestion that Casebook is a place to discuss only suspects, that those who wish to discuss other matters are 'in the wrong place.'

Really, I'm not picking on you, Heinrich, but this is the one matter where I am quite adamant: the lives of the victims, and those around them, are at least as important as the twazzock who murdered them. Frankly, I couldn't care two damns who 'the Ripper' was--but this site is jammed with people who've far more knowledge and interesting things than I to say on topics other than the blinking suspects, and I imagine they're right at home here.

Oh, and Barnett weren't the flamin ripper, fer pity's sake. Poor b@stard.

[Heinrich]

...
1) There is no convicting evidence at all else you

I am unfamiliar with the term, "convicting" evidence, Monty, but siffice it to say there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I, all the nice ladies and Gents would not be here. As Barnett would have indeed been convicted and this thread dead.

It is not nice to hijack a thread about the missing key and Joseph Barnett by engaging in personal insults for your own entertainment while avoiding the discussion of the conclusions based on the evidence.

... the evidence you cite is hearsay, provided by the man himself. Yes, he provides the very 'damning ' evidence you state convicts.

Since the testimony regarding Joseph Barnett about his rows with Mary Kelly, his attempts to control her life, his reason for leaving her no more than ten days before her dead body was found, his admission that he was with her on the night of the murder, being the last person who admits being seen in her company, his familiarity with the ease of access to 13 Miller's Court, and so on, is all provided by Joseph Barnett himself, the hearsay rule does not apply as he is the declarant (not quoting another) and such statements are admissible in court since all this testimony is inculpatory.

... I soon realise your facts are really based on the word of one man only. The same man you condem.

A good deal but not all.

[Monty]

Ok Heinrich,

Let me respond point by point.

1) There is no convicting evidence at all else you, I, all the nice ladies and Gents would not be here. As Barnett would have indeed been convicted and this thread dead.

However, he wasn't. Why? Because the evidence you cite is hearsay, provided by the man himself. Yes, he provides the very 'damning ' evidence you state convicts. However, here we are.

Convicting evidence indeed.

2) Thankfully we are not of the same mind. If you think casebook is solely suspect based then you have not explored an nth of this wonderful resource.

3) It certainly does test my tolerance level Heiny. My sarcasm restraint deteriorates as it happens. However, calmness is restored as I soon realise your facts are really based on the word of one man only. The same man you condem. Bet he was relieved der polis were dumb.

4) They sure have, and in some instances rightly so....however not this one.

5) How about you provide facts instead of your opinions ad nauseam (ooh, looky, latin makes me look right clever) and maybe I will.

Monty

[Heinrich]

...
There is not enough evidence on any suspect for a certain conclusion to be drawn.

Read over this thread again, Monty. You will see sufficient evidence to convict Joseph Barnett.

Bottom line is I do not do suspect Ripperology.

Were I of the same mind, Casebook is the last place I would come.

What I do 'do' is not tolerate ill conceived and unfounded comments about Police matters as these words influence and lead to myth.

In that case my comments leading to the guilt of Joseph Barnett, as they are based on facts, should test your tolerance level little.

You see it as pot shots (which is exactly what you are doing by the way, towards the Police of the day)

The Metropolitan Police, then as now, have had worse criticism from others besides myself, Monty.

I see it as pointing out the facts and leave others to draw their own conclusion.

Members will appreciate being allowed to draw our own conclusions without being mocked, Monty.

How about dealing with the issues (facts as you put it) in future posts rather than argumentum ad hominem condescension, Monty.

[Monty]

After you do some research, Monty, why not return to suggest a suspect? I think you'll find your visits to Casebook more rewarding by offering ideas about the killer rather than taking pot shots at those who do.
Instead of believing Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly, you might have a good reason to suspect Tom. What about Dick's alibi? And did you think of Harry?

Heinrich,

As Michael Caine once famously asked, do you want the killer or will anyone do?

I work in facts and logical conclusion, which annoys some (Hi Phil....wait he won't see this, someone say Hi to Phil for me). There is not enough evidence on any suspect for a certain conclusion to be drawn.

Bottom line is I do not do suspect Ripperology. What I do 'do' is not tolerate ill conceived and unfounded comments about Police matters as these words influence and lead to myth.

You see it as pot shots (which is exactly what you are doing by the way, towards the Police of the day), I see it as pointing out the facts and leave others to draw their own conclusion.

Monty

[Sally]

Heinrich - I mean this in the nicest possible way - but do some research mate.

Seriously.

[Heinrich]

...
Person or persons unknown.

After you do some research, Monty, why not return to suggest a suspect? I think you'll find your visits to Casebook more rewarding by offering ideas about the killer rather than taking pot shots at those who do.
Instead of believing Joseph Barnett murdered Mary Kelly, you might have a good reason to suspect Tom. What about Dick's alibi? And did you think of Harry?

[curious]

Hi Curious,

The Police are the responsibility of the Home Office. In 1888 the Met Commissioner Warren reported to Home Secretary Matthews.

Looking at the evidence it seems the relationship between these two men was fractious and was partly the reason Warren walked.

And that's it simply put.

Monty

Ah, yes. I remember reading about Warren's resignation. Thanks, Monty. The responsibilities of the various governmental divisions remain "foreign" to me.

And about the other part of this threat you are responding to . . . you are just feeding a troll who trots out "motive, method and opportunity" as though he is the only person who ever heard of the concept and as though, with it, he has invented the cure for cancer.

He does not seem to be able to comprehend what "evidence" is.

Good luck.

curious