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

[Wickerman]

The Pall Mall Gazette 10 Nov describes Bowyer "on knocking at the door was unable to obtain an answer. On looking through the keyhole he found the key was missing."

If Bob was correct about the type of lock, then there was no slot for a key on the inside. Perhaps that is why Bowyer saw no key retained in the keyhole.
The key was only used to get in from the outside.

[rjpalmer]

Yes, the retaining knob on the inside must have been in the release position for the door to be locked.
But i am still at a loss as to why the police did not put their hands through the window to unlock the catch if it was as simple as Abberline says.
Maybe i am missing something?

Hi Darryl. Is there a reason you dismiss the account given by Inspector Henry Moore? He stated the door lock was jammed and the killer was forced to escape out the window. Finding the key wouldn't have helped; the lock was mechanically stuck.

One could dismiss Moore's account as sensationalism, of course, but it does explain why a pick-axe had to be used.

[rjpalmer]

Back to the coat over the door for a moment...

Door? I think you mean window.

Walter Dew, I Caught Crippen, 1938:

“The room was pointed out to me… I tried the door. It would not yield. So I moved to the window, over which, on the inside, an old coat was hanging to act as a curtain and to block the draught from the hole in the glass.”

If this coat was a “fabrication” or a “false memory” or “malarkey” on the part of Walter Dew, would we really expect to find contemporary support for it in an obscure note to an illustration of the room published on 11 November 1888?

How do you explain that, Wolf?

How incredibly lucky that this old liar and fabricator Dew must have been, writing in the 1930s, to unwittingly have made the same strange "error" (?) that someone else had already made while writing a note to an illustration clear back in November, 1888, only 2 days after the murder.

I suppose one could argue that in writing his memoirs Walter Dew hobbled down to the British Library and scoured old bound copies of The Sunday Times until he found this obscure reference and then decided to add it to his memoirs (despite that it clashed with the more well-known accounts) but is that really very likely??

Isn’t it far more likely Dew wrote from his actual experience, and this contemporary note confirms the accuracy of his memory?

Yes, the contemporary accounts you cite mention a curtain and quote Bowyers calling it a curtain. But recall that after the discovery of Mary Kelly’s body, the court was cordoned off, and two burly constables stood like sentinels on either side of the entry, keeping people out. The windows were boarded up. No reporters writing those initial stories of the murder had any actual access to the room, and wouldn’t know, nor would have particularly cared, what drapes Mary Kelly may have kept over her window. It would have been an irrelevancy to them. And in telling his “narrative” of how this appalling scene was discovered, the nature of the fabric covering the window would have been the last thing on Bowyer's mind. He took no notice but naturally assumed it had been an ordinary curtain of some sort. And, for that matter, there could have been both a curtain and a coat.

The Times was the conservative voice of London and probably enjoyed better access to the police than most. A couple of days had passed and the illustrator, possibly working with a police source, got the story right. Dew’s memory confirms it. Minor point, obviously, but it tends to show that Dew was not the blowhard as so often depicted by “Ripperologists.”

[Sam Flynn]

Do we know that was the case Sam?

I see no reason to doubt that it was.

As I understand it there are no records that show his statement was checked with that lodging house to confirm he had resided there prior to that night.

There are no records to show that it wasn't checked, either. But, as I said, I've no reason to doubt it.

[Michael W Richards]

In simple terms the spring lock had a latch that had to be engaged for the door to remain unlocked when closed. Flicking that latch is all it takes to unlock it too.


In terms of this discussion about Levy, isn't Issacs more interesting in this context?

[Wickerman]

Hi Joshua.

Robert posted the link in a previous post.

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=465729&postcount=619

We can't be sure this is exactly the same lock, though it represents the same type of lock used at the time.

Bob Hinton researched a lot into this many years ago. He even built a replica mock-up of the window and door to see if it was physically possible to reach.
He went to great lengths....

[Joshua Rogan]

True, and was described as such in the press.

"The last person to have left the place must have closed the door behind him, taking with him the key from the spring lock, as it is missing."
Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov. 1888.

Even though the point of the comment was the missing key, it is also of importance to know this was a spring lock. Meaning the door bolt was spring loaded so the door locked itself when pulled shut.

These locks had a two knobs on the inside. One knob was slid horizontal to withdraw the door bolt. The other when slid up would retain the bolt in the withdrawn position, or if applied when the bolt was extended, would lock the door.

Do you have a photo of the sort of lock you're describing, Jon? I'm finding it hard to picture.
The Pall Mall Gazette 10 Nov describes Bowyer "on knocking at the door was unable to obtain an answer. On looking through the keyhole he found the key was missing."*

So this sounds to me like a mortice type lock, with a keyhole accessible from both sides and a separate sprung latch to keep the door closed (but not necessarily locked). But this can't be correct as this would need a separate handle on the outside to open. Whereas Barnet's tale implies that the door could be opened solely by turning the key, before it was lost.
I'm struggling to find Victorian examples of a type of lock which fits all known details.

*Incidentally, if he told the police this, he may be the source for them believing that the killer had taken the key. And, possibly, their assumption that the door needed unlocking rather than unlatching.

[Wickerman]

As I understand it there are no records that show his statement was checked with that lodging house to confirm he had resided there prior to that night..

He didn't stay there that night, in fact from his own words he seems to have slept at some other address prior to that night.
He only took up residence at the Victoria Home from the 10th, he came in when it opened in the morning. That is what he said. He couldn't stay at his usual place, as he says, "my usual place was closed".

[Abby Normal]

She might have, though, but that's for another thread.

Suffice to say that the man of "gentlemanly appearance" might have been the man seen by Lewis outside the Britannia, and not Mr Astrakahan.

hi sam and wick
I started a new thread about this on Kelly victim section

[Sam Flynn]

It just reads as though Lewis saw Kelly with him, but she didn't.

She might have, though, but that's for another thread.

Suffice to say that the man of "gentlemanly appearance" might have been the man seen by Lewis outside the Britannia, and not Mr Astrakahan.

[Wickerman]

Is this Astrakhan man or Blotchy?

https://casebook.org/press_reports/morning_advertiser/18881119.html

He was of gentlemanly appearance and manners, and somewhat resembled the description given by the witnesses at the inquest as having been seen in company with Kelly early on the morning that she was murdered. Upon being minutely questioned as to his whereabouts at the time of the murders, the suspect was able to furnish a satisfactory account of himself, and was accordingly liberated.

It's neither, as has been pointed out it is more likely the Britannia-man, yet Sarah Lewis did not see Kelly with this man. Lewis admitted she did not know Kelly. So something is wrong with that paragraph.

It was Mrs Kennedy, 30 minutes after Lewis, who noticed Kelly talking with this man outside the Britannia.
The only way this paragraph in the press makes sense is that the journalist has put two & two together and realized that Sarah Lewis (at the inquest) was talking about the same man as Mrs Kennedy (in the press), who had seen Kelly talking with him.
It just reads as though Lewis saw Kelly with him, but she didn't.

[Batman]

This is just the standard opposition to Hutchinson's suspect - that nobody dressed that way would be on Dorset St., at such an hour.

Yet this opposition tends to omit the possibility that JtR lived close by, thus any posed risks minimal compared to a night wanderer. It also omits that JtR would likely not want to be out dressed shabby, given the descriptions out there.

[Sam Flynn]

What I am reading here is that a Jew living near Petticoat Lane, doesn't make Jack the Ripper.

However, that isn't the argument I am making. It's just a bit of the argument.

Jacob Levy is significant, especially given the proximity to the GSG. Taken in context, it is significant because he is falling out of bed into the very place a JtR witnesses claims to have recognized his suspect from.

Was Jacob Levy in the habit of walking around wearing a gold watch and an astrakhan coat, etc? He might have been of Jewish appearance, but there were thousands more in Petticoat Lane of a Sunday. Even on a non market-day, there'd still have been hundreds of men of Jewish appearance living in, or nearby, the area known as Petticoat Lane.

[Abby Normal]

What I am reading here is that a Jew living near Petticoat Lane, doesn't make Jack the Ripper.

However, that isn't the argument I am making. It's just a bit of the argument.

Jacob Levy is significant, especially given the proximity to the GSG. Taken in context, it is significant because he is falling out of bed into the very place a JtR witnesses claims to have recognized his suspect from.

was Jacob levy rich?

[Wickerman]

Not that it was necessarily slammed, as such. Simply pulling it to would presumably have sufficed.

True, and was described as such in the press.

"The last person to have left the place must have closed the door behind him, taking with him the key from the spring lock, as it is missing."
Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov. 1888.

Even though the point of the comment was the missing key, it is also of importance to know this was a spring lock. Meaning the door bolt was spring loaded so the door locked itself when pulled shut.

These locks had a two knobs on the inside. One knob was slid horizontal to withdraw the door bolt. The other when slid up would retain the bolt in the withdrawn position, or if applied when the bolt was extended, would lock the door.