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

[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.

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

"Bloody streaks on the windowsills, for instance."

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

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

That's quite a scenario.

I don't believe the door was locked.

Happy Christmas.

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

It was certainly made to look that way.

[Fisherman]

cox said mary banged the door.

Look at this, from the DT of the 13:th of November:

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.

One has to wonder!

[DJA]

There was a light in the window, but I saw nothing, as the blinds were down.

[caz]

Hi All,

Would it not be a bit of a coincidence if, on this particular night, Kelly's door jammed shut in such a way that meant anyone inside would have had no choice but to exit through the window? So if Kelly had gone back alone, without Blotchy, and had banged the door shut, she'd have been in this position when she woke in the morning and tried to go out?

Wasn't it thought at one time that you could always open the door from the inside, but it would be locked to anyone on the outside unless they had a key? When the key went missing, I had assumed Kelly and Barnett would have left the door on the latch when going out, so they could get back in or, if it shut behind them and locked them out, Barnett could lean in through the window and unlock it from the inside.

If the killer did escape through the window, was it perhaps on purpose, after putting a chair against the door to prevent anyone from entering too easily? He probably wouldn't know if anyone had a key, or that the door would have locked automatically if he had only gone out that way and shut it firmly behind him. After all, Kelly didn't have a key when taking Blotchy back, and they didn't get in through the window, so he'd have assumed the door was always unlocked.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

... After all, Kelly didn't have a key when taking Blotchy back, and they didn't get in through the window, so he'd have assumed the door was always unlocked.

This has been my point from the start, the door was left unlocked/open when the tenant was out, they had nothing worth stealing. Only locked, for personal protection, when the tenant was home.
In this case a key would rarely be used, so if it went missing it was no inconvenience.