Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    The same irregular dark space on the window panes is on the lower right pane as is on the upper pane..
    I noticed that myself but when enlarged that hole is very spotty, it's more likely an imperfection in the photo.

    I believe Sam traces the outline of one side of that break.
    I think the red line Sam drew was the same break in the upper right pane.

    It was the window in the photo that is the lowest righthand pane that would be used to gain access to the room.
    Agreed, the lower right pane would be nearest the center point of the door where a lock should be installed.

    We know it was opened that way, Barnett said so,...
    It's always refreshing to know there are still some who do believe what witnesses say.

    ...raising the issue of McCarthy forcing open the door later. He owned the furniture in the room...might he be trying to create a situation where the police would have to reimburse him for the furniture?
    I'm more inclined to think McCarthy only wanted to save his door from being busted off the frame. Getting reimbursement from the police couldn't have been an easy exercise.
    Last edited by Wickerman; 12-15-2018, 01:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    The same irregular dark space on the window panes is on the lower right pane as is on the upper pane..I believe Sam traces the outline of one side of that break. It was the window in the photo that is the lowest righthand pane that would be used to gain access to the room. Some have tried to replicate the move by measuring the distance of their reach against what they believe would be the distance from standing outside the window and reaching in..but for me the facts that both the window, and the door, which were later additions to that ex parlor room, and were added extremely close to the corner makes it safe to assume that it should have been relatively easy to reach in unscathed.

    We know it was opened that way, Barnett said so, so speculating which window and whether or not it could actually be reached are moot points at best. Ill add that it would have been easy as well to push anything blocking the door from its inswing from the window,...raising the issue of McCarthy forcing open the door later. He owned the furniture in the room...might he be trying to create a situation where the police would have to reimburse him for the furniture?

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    You rang?

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Yep
    Top right was quite clearly 'holed'
    Inquest testimony of Bowyer and Phillips tell us that the other broken pane had to be lower left .
    No one without the anatomy of a rather brave orangutan would be attempting to open the door through that top right pane with shards waiting to rip their arm up

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    There seems to be a large hole in the middle of the top right pane.

    Bowyer, at the inquest, stated that the furthest pane (bottom left?) was broken, this was the one he reached through to move the curtain.

    Dr Philips said that two panes in the smaller window were broken, he looked through the lower of the two.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    The pane above was in worse condition,yet there are those here that believe McCarthy was not aware.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post
    The photo taken during the afternoon shows the bottom right pane that was utilised to be "intact".
    Some people think they can see the outline of a hole there, and I wouldn't argue with them, because it's hard to tell one way or another from such a contrasty photograph. I've toned down the contrast a little to make it easier to spot, and I've drawn a red line to show where the edge of broken pane might still just be made out:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	broken window.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	27.8 KB
ID:	667641

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    Do we know if there were shards of glass in the right lower window pane or was all the glass removed from that corner thus making it safer but a larger gap?



    The photo taken during the afternoon shows the bottom right pane that was utilised to be "intact".

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    Do we know if there were shards of glass in the right lower window pane or was all the glass removed from that corner thus making it safer but a larger gap?
    There were 2 windows there Darryl, each had 3 rows of 3...or was it 3 rows of 4..smaller panes within the single frame. The lower right pane was not completly devoid of glass, just the centre section was broken...and the second window further down the wall from the corner, also had one of those panes broken, in the same fashion. Which one the couple broke when they had the fight Barnett recollected is a guess, but for my money, the pane on the window furthest down the wall is the most probable one. I believe that Mary and/or Joe purposefully broke that lower right pane so they could access the latch after they had lost the key to lock the room. That way they could still lock the door when the went out. Did Mary lock it that night before leaving? My guess is no, Mary Ann saw them approach and then enter the room without seeing Mary do any gymnastics to get the latch through the broken pane.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Michael,

    I believe this was Inspector Henry Moore, who in December 1899 claimed £77.11s expenses in respect of the Whitechapel Murders.

    Inspector Moore - Pall Mall Gazette 4th November 1889 [Talking to journalist R. Harding Davis] -

    "He cut the skeleton so clean of flesh that when I got here I could hardly tell whether it was a man or a woman. He hung the different parts of the body on nails and over the backs of chairs. It must have taken him an hour and a half in all. And when he was ready to go he found the door was jammed and 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 around his own neck."

    Regards,

    Simon

    I wasnt sure of my memory Simon, so thank you for this. :

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    Do we know if there were shards of glass in the right lower window pane or was all the glass removed from that corner thus making it safer but a larger gap?

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Yes, it was Harding Davis's interview with Moore; it had nothing to do with Dew, who was completely circumspect and stated that the 'complete details of that room would only ever be known to those whose duty it was to enter it.' (I quote from memory). No gory details, but let's bash the old boy just the same.

    Hi Simon. Merry Christmas to you! Let me answer your question with a question. Or maybe ten.

    Refresh my memory. Who took that exterior photograph of No. 13 Miller's Court? Is it standard procedure to photograph the outside wall of a crime scene, or is it likely that the broken window had some relevance? Or maybe even the other window next to it? If not, why photograph them? What relevance might they have to the murder? Does Henry Moore offer any enlightenment on this point?

    As for Harding Davis/Moore, what is hanging on the back of the chair in the drawing in Wickerman's post #556? I ask just for jollies, of course. All the best.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Michael,

    I believe this was Inspector Henry Moore, who in December 1899 claimed £77.11s expenses in respect of the Whitechapel Murders.

    Inspector Moore - Pall Mall Gazette 4th November 1889 [Talking to journalist R. Harding Davis] -

    "He cut the skeleton so clean of flesh that when I got here I could hardly tell whether it was a man or a woman. He hung the different parts of the body on nails and over the backs of chairs. It must have taken him an hour and a half in all. And when he was ready to go he found the door was jammed and 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 around his own neck."

    Regards,

    Simon
    Last edited by Simon Wood; 12-13-2018, 01:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Isn’t it far more likely Dew wrote from his actual experience, and this contemporary note confirms the accuracy of his memory?
    If I recall Dew is quoted at some point recollecting "entrails hanging from the ceiling".. if my recollection is correct hardly my go to guy for the "truth" rj.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi RJ,

    Is there any particular reason why you choose to believe the crock of old horsefeathers about the door being locked, thus having to be subsequently broken open by McCarthy?

    Mele Kalikimaka maika'i a me ka makahiki hou maika'i.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X