Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson?

[c.d.]

Hi RJ,

Fortified egg nog is fine with me. In fact, I'd be happy with just the rum.

Carefully examine, as if it were a watch mechanism under a lupe, the way in which the Millers Court scenario unfolded: who was where, who said what, the resources which were serendipitously to hand, the timing, the locked room scenario, and the day itself.

Millers Court was long in the planning.

Regards,

Simon

A planned killing? That would seem more in line with a bank robbery than what took place in Millers Court. Millers Court seems to reflect someone totally out of control.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

Fortified egg nog is fine with me. In fact, I'd be happy with just the rum.

Carefully examine, as if it were a watch mechanism under a lupe, the way in which the Millers Court scenario unfolded: who was where, who said what, the resources which were serendipitously to hand, the timing, the locked room scenario, and the day itself.

Millers Court was long in the planning.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Hi Simon. The trouble with conspiracies is that the more people 'in the know,' the more likely they are to become public knowledge.

If you want to argue that Swanson and Anderson are pulling my leg, then I will put the kettle on the boil, brew a nice pot of tea, and we can discuss it.

If you want to include Badham, Bond, Phillips, Hutchinson, McCarthy, Barnett, etc. in the loop, then I really better make it eggnog fortified with a good bottle of rum.

All the best.

if that's the case, better make it absinthe

[Abby Normal]

Hi Wickerman. I agree completely. It is a ‘sash’ type window. In theory, it should open, but we all know they tend to stick. I also agree with Scott. From the photo, it certainly looks 'doable.' Grab hold of the drain pipe with your right hand, even hoist one knee up onto the windowsill if necessary, gingerly lean in through the hole in the window, and flip back the door lock. Why would Barnett have lied about it?

So back to the question I’ve seen repeatedly posted on this site since first visiting around 2001: why did McCarthy break open the door with a pick-axe? If the door latch could be reached, why was this necessary?

Few seem to want to accept it, but an answer was supplied by Inspector Henry Moore to R. Harding Davis:

"And when [the Ripper] was ready to go he found the door was jammed; and he had to make his escape through the larger of those two windows. Imagine how this man felt when he tried the door and found it was locked; that was before he thought of the window - believing that he was locked in with that bleeding skeleton and the strips of flesh that he had hung so fantastically about the room, that he had trapped himself beside his victim, and had helped to put the rope wound his own neck."

The story is too fanciful, I suppose, and theorists, for the most part, are afraid of looking ridiculous.

But for the sake of argument, why must this be wrong? Inspector Moore existed. Richard Harding Davis existed. As far as I can tell, they are reliable people.

We do know of one man who 'banged' the door shut that night: 'Blotchy.'

If the mechanism broke or jammed when Blotchy banged the door, he wouldn't have been able to leave again, and was thus forced to exit thru the window. And thus the next day, when the body was discovered, the Met was forced to pop the bolt with McCarthy's pick-axe. Further, Abberline and the police seemed to be particularly intent on finding evidence that Blotchy had been in that room: finding evidence of missing pewter beer ‘can.’

Meanwhile, years later, Walter Dew clearly believes 'Blotchy' was the murderer, and Hutchinson had the wrong night. Dew does not elaborate, but this rather odd belief would make sense in lieu of what Inspector Moore had already concluded; Kelly's earlier client 'Blotchy' had broken the lock when he slammed the door. He then killed Kelly and left thru the window. Hutchinson’s man couldn’t have entered the room even if he had wanted to…

I'm not saying that I'm "all in" with this scenario--I may not like it any more than you or any one else does--- but it does have a certain consistency of logic.

And there must be some reason the outside of those windows was photographed. It had a relevance. The police aren't generally interested in the exterior walls of murder sites unless they played a role in the crime committed within. Bloody streaks on the windowsills, for instance.

hi rj

cox said mary banged the door.

and if the murderer went out the window-surley not through the broken shards? and if he opened the window to get out he wouldnt have then closed it once he was out would he?

but whatever, blotchy is probably the most reasonable candidate for the ripper IMHO.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Simon. The trouble with conspiracies is that the more people 'in the know,' the more likely they are to become public knowledge.

If you want to argue that Swanson and Anderson are pulling my leg, then I will put the kettle on the boil, brew a nice pot of tea, and we can discuss it.

If you want to include Badham, Bond, Phillips, Hutchinson, McCarthy, Barnett, etc. in the loop, then I really better make it eggnog fortified with a good bottle of rum.

All the best.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

And there must be some reason the outside of those windows was photographed. It had a relevance. The police aren't generally interested in the exterior walls of murder sites unless they played a role in the crime committed within. Bloody streaks on the windowsills, for instance.

Dr. Phillips: “I found a room the door of which led out of the passage near 26 Dorset Street and having two windows I produce a photograph I had taken…”
The official Inquest papers.

Dr. Phillips: “I went to the room door leading out of the passage running at the side of 26, Dorset-street. There were two windows to the room. I produce a photograph which will enable you to see exactly the position.”
The Times, 13 November, 1888.

So the photograph of the windows was taken under Dr. Phillips' orders in order to show the position of the windows through which he viewed the body (this is what he talked about after showing the photograph). He also says that the door was locked.

Wolf.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

That's quite a scenario.

I don't believe the door was locked.

Happy Christmas.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

"Bloody streaks on the windowsills, for instance."

Or smashed windows which an intruder might have used to gain entry?

[rjpalmer]

Hi Wickerman. I agree completely. It is a ‘sash’ type window. In theory, it should open, but we all know they tend to stick. I also agree with Scott. From the photo, it certainly looks 'doable.' Grab hold of the drain pipe with your right hand, even hoist one knee up onto the windowsill if necessary, gingerly lean in through the hole in the window, and flip back the door lock. Why would Barnett have lied about it?

So back to the question I’ve seen repeatedly posted on this site since first visiting around 2001: why did McCarthy break open the door with a pick-axe? If the door latch could be reached, why was this necessary?

Few seem to want to accept it, but an answer was supplied by Inspector Henry Moore to R. Harding Davis:

"And when [the Ripper] was ready to go he found the door was jammed; and he had to make his escape through the larger of those two windows. Imagine how this man felt when he tried the door and found it was locked; that was before he thought of the window - believing that he was locked in with that bleeding skeleton and the strips of flesh that he had hung so fantastically about the room, that he had trapped himself beside his victim, and had helped to put the rope wound his own neck."

The story is too fanciful, I suppose, and theorists, for the most part, are afraid of looking ridiculous.

But for the sake of argument, why must this be wrong? Inspector Moore existed. Richard Harding Davis existed. As far as I can tell, they are reliable people.

We do know of one man who 'banged' the door shut that night: 'Blotchy.'

If the mechanism broke or jammed when Blotchy banged the door, he wouldn't have been able to leave again, and was thus forced to exit thru the window. And thus the next day, when the body was discovered, the Met was forced to pop the bolt with McCarthy's pick-axe. Further, Abberline and the police seemed to be particularly intent on finding evidence that Blotchy had been in that room: finding evidence of missing pewter beer ‘can.’

Meanwhile, years later, Walter Dew clearly believes 'Blotchy' was the murderer, and Hutchinson had the wrong night. Dew does not elaborate, but this rather odd belief would make sense in lieu of what Inspector Moore had already concluded; Kelly's earlier client 'Blotchy' had broken the lock when he slammed the door. He then killed Kelly and left thru the window. Hutchinson’s man couldn’t have entered the room even if he had wanted to…

I'm not saying that I'm "all in" with this scenario--I may not like it any more than you or any one else does--- but it does have a certain consistency of logic.

And there must be some reason the outside of those windows was photographed. It had a relevance. The police aren't generally interested in the exterior walls of murder sites unless they played a role in the crime committed within. Bloody streaks on the windowsills, for instance.

[Wickerman]

I've long held that Barnett grasped the drain pipe with his right hand while reaching through the broken pane with his left. The pipe would afford a slightly closer reach in with the left arm.

Incidentally, at Kelly's inquest Barnett reportedly said that a pipe was there and used by him when talking about the subject of entry into the room. But this may have been misunderstood by both the press and the inquest scribe to mean that a (smoking) pipe was found there because of the arbitrary questioning and ambiguous nature of the testimony.

Hi Scott, in the inquest testimony the only pipe I see mentioned is by Abberline when he talks about a clay pipe found in the room.

"There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it."
Daily Telegraph, 13 Nov. 1888.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman. Looking at the upper and lower halves of the window, the framework looks 'off-set.' To me, it looks like the window opens by sliding it upwards. Is that the way you see it? Best wishes, RP

I'm sure these are sash windows, which open just as you describe.
The upper panes slides down, and the lower panes slide up, when they work. Wood rot, damp, a jammed ballast, or untold coats of paint can all prevent either set from sliding.

[Scott Nelson]

I've long held that Barnett grasped the drain pipe with his right hand while reaching through the broken pane with his left. The pipe would afford a slightly closer reach in with the left arm.

Incidentally, at Kelly's inquest Barnett reportedly said that a pipe was there and used by him when talking about the subject of entry into the room. But this may have been misunderstood by both the press and the inquest scribe to mean that a (smoking) pipe was found there because of the arbitrary questioning and ambiguous nature of the testimony.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Wickerman. Looking at the upper and lower halves of the window, the framework looks 'off-set.' To me, it looks like the window opens by sliding it upwards. Is that the way you see it? Best wishes, RP

[Sam Flynn]

raising the issue of McCarthy forcing open the door later. He owned the furniture in the room...

A few sticks of old, knackered furniture - and some of it soaked in blood, at that.

[Wickerman]

There is something else in this picture.
I doubt the right arm is the best limb to use in reaching the lock, it must surely be the left arm.
And, as such, what does Barnet hold on to with his right hand as he reaches through?
Isn't it natural to steady yourself by grasping something firm?

Notice the white mark on the down spout? If he is grasping the corner of the wall to steady himself, then his coat sleeve is rubbing on the downspout.