Window Removal

[Wickerman]

I think some of the other suggestions were pretty good ones.... that it was to give better ventilation, (big tick on that one) to give more light to those working inside, or to make it easier to pass things in and out of the room,...

Hi Jane.
Yes, that point reminds me. I once suggested one possible reason for removing one window.
I took a plan view scale drawing of the room at Millers Court, and the passage entrance.
Her door opened directly facing a wall only about 3(?) feet away.
I remember we read Mary's body was removed in a shell of a coffin. It occured to me, "how would they manouver a 6 foot long box out of a room facing a wall 3 feet away?"
Perhaps that was one reason to remove a window after all the investigation was done, to pass her body/coffin out of the room?
But this has nothing to do with explaining the news article.

Regards, Jon.S.

Hi all,

Couple of things on the windows, if you get to see a good quality image of them you'll note that the one closest to the corner, and therefore the spring latch, had I believe 5-3 pane rows, and the broken panes were...one at the second row from the bottom right, and the second I think close to or at the top left. I believe those are correct, but I dont have that image on this computer to do a quick check.

Secondly, when the room was "forcibly entered", both windows were locked from the inside, as was the door. The door could just have been set to lock by the killer when leaving.

Why didnt they use the window/spring latch method that both Barnett and apparently Abberline knew before 1:30pm that day, when they supposedly enter for the first time, and why are city constables in that courtyard at all...where are the missing photos we know were taken, and were the windows covered with the muslin curtains when they took them ? We have time of day data that we could use in MJK3 better if we knew some of that.

Elizabeth Prater said she saw Mary throruh the window in the early afternoon when she came into the courtyard for water...so they were open at some point anyway.

Best regards all.

[Jane Coram]

A window pain and a half

Hi Wickerman,

The story in the press which suggests the removal of a window has a rather confused sequence, probably an editorial error.

I think that you are almost certainly correct there. It does seem a strange thing to report on if it didn't happen at all, as it's got a certain ring of authenticity to it, but the information is very vague, which might suggest that they weren't too sure of the facts themselves. As you pointed out, the primary source material always has to take precedence over a newspaper report anyway -- so I reckon you've hit the nail on the head there.

If there is any truth in the report, it would seem far more sensible for the police to gain access, and then remove part of the window, whatever their reason for doing so.

During the discussion before we were just throwing out ideas as to why the window might have been removed, and the suggestion I made that it might have been to give the photographer more room to manoeuvre, was just an idle thought and not meant as anything more than a bit of speculation, following some other posts about photographing the crime scene.

I think some of the other suggestions were pretty good ones.... that it was to give better ventilation, (big tick on that one) to give more light to those working inside, or to make it easier to pass things in and out of the room, which I suppose would include the photographer's equipment. If the table was still pushed against the door as the reports indicate, then it might have been very hard to get things in and out without bumping into something unmentionable! If the sash of the window was broken, it would have been much safer to take it out altogether rather than getting their fingers crushed everytime it fell down.

As to the newspaper sketch of the crime scene that you posted, a bit of artistic license there by the looks of it! The room wasn't nearly as large as it appears in that sketch, although there are far worse offenders than that one for making Mary's room look like a luxory apartment in Mayfair. Just take a look at this one!

Bestest

Jane

xxxx

[Wickerman]

Hello Philip
One reason may be that it was done to aid visibilty for the Doctors and Police who were to spend the rest of that November afternoon in the crime scene.

The doctors can't do anything through an open window, they all gained entry to begin their examination, as is demonstrated thus:

[Wickerman]

I suggested some time ago, that one possibility for taking out a bit of the window was that the space was so confined within the room that there was room for the camera, but not the photographer. It would have made sense to put the camera inside the room, which would fit in with the crime scene photo, whilst the photographer stood outside, bending through the window, to actually take the photo.

Jane.
If you read the inquest testimony by Dr Phillips you will see he takes the reader almost step by step through the events that happened at Millers Court from the time when he arrived, and possession of the scene was in the hands of Insp. Beck, until the arrival of Supt. Arnold.
The Doctor tried the door, it being locked, he then looked through the broken window pains. The Doctor then states:
"Having ascertained that probably it was advisable that no entrance should be made into the room at that time, I remained until about 1:30, when the door was broken open, by M'Carthy I believe. I know he was waiting with a pickaxe to break open the door, and I believe he did it. The direction to break open the door was given by Superintendent Arnold."

Insp. Abberline's testimony was in effect:
"He (Abberline) did not break open the door as Inspector Beck told him that the bloodhounds had been sent for and were on the way, and Dr. Phillips said it would be better not to break open the door until the dogs arrived."

The first action Supt. Arnold dictated was to enter the room as the bloodhounds were not to arrive afterall.

The statements of Phillips & Abberline make it clear that both officials insisted that no entry should be made. The reason for this is to preserve the scent, because the dogs are being brought.
Removing windows will not preserve the scent, or at least will inhibit the preservation of the scent.
There's no logical argument for believeing Supt. Arnold ordered the removal of any windows. Prior to the arrival of Arnold the room was contained to preserve the scent, on Arnold's arrival at 1:30 pm, the preservation was still required. This changed when Arnold received the message that the dog's were no longer being brought. At this point Arnold ordered the breaking open of the door.
The story in the press which suggests the removal of a window has a rather confused sequence, probably an editorial error.

Photographing the body.
We do have a sketch showing the body being photographed. If this had been done from the outside, through the window as you suggested, then why do you think they show it this way?
(Photo, courtesy of Evans & Skinner)

[Bailey]

Thanks to all who replied on this. As I originally said to Philip, it had certainly seemed unlikely to me they'd remove a whole window or frame - logic would suggest that if anything they'd probably have knocked the last bits of glass out of an already broken pane to allow a lens to get an unobstructed view.

Cheers to everyone who replied, and thanks to those who agreed that I'm apparently not a complete mental case

B.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

Abberline probably had to use a farthing dip to show Room 13 to the jury because by that time the windows had been boarded up.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

Following on from Jon's post, one wonders what illumination the doctors had. Even though it was still day, the light would have been poor inside the room. I suppose that either an oil lamp was hung up, or candles were used. If the latter, then they must have taken them with them when they left the room, for Abberline is described as showing the jury the room with the aid of a farthing dip in a bottle, i.e. Kelly's own candle, presumably.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

In the exterior photograph of Room 13 both windows are intact.

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=6&pos=2

Regards,

Simon

[Jon Guy]

I can see no use whatsoever in taking the frame out.PHILIP

Hello Philip

One reason may be that it was done to aid visibilty for the Doctors and Police who were to spend the rest of that November afternoon in the crime scene.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Bailey
The reference to Arnold you quoted in your first post comes from the East London Advertiser of 17 November 1888
The paragraph in full reads:
At a quarter to 11, as the woman was 35s. in arrears with her rent, Mr. M'Carthy said to a man employed by him in his shop, "Go to No. 13 (meaning the room occupied by Kelly) and try to get some rent." The man did as he was directed, and on knocking at the door was unable to obtain an answer. He then tried the handle of the door, and found it was locked. On looking through the keyhole he found the key was missing. Through a broken pane of glass he could see the woman lying on the bed naked, covered with blood, and apparently dead. The police were sent for, and Superintendent Arnold, having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be entirely removed.

[Chava]

But there was more than one window in that room, wasn't there? There was the one beside the door and I think there was another. In any case, I always supposed they removed that window to get the best image they could get of the victim, and they may have needed some space to do that, so couldn't do it within the room. We know they moved the bed for one shot, so probably they were taking multiple pictures of the corpse.

[Mike Covell]

Even today, quality double glazing can be removed in no time, and I watched this recently with a neighbour.
He had bought a new three piece suite and discovered it wouldn't fit in his house via the doors. He called a glazier who came and took out his front window.

Cost of Suite £1,000
Cost of Window removal £500
Look on neighbours face.....priceless!!

I had to remove windows when I was an industrial cleaner, and with some of the older styles it was quite easy to lift them up off their runners. Once tilted at an angle they came away quite quickly, but we could only do this from inside the property. The only way it was possible to remove a window from the outside is by removing the frame, usually with a selection of chisles!

And then you risk the window frame falling back into the property.

Could it be possible the press reports refer to the glass only? And not the frames.

[Jane Coram]

Window pain

Hi Bailey,

There was a fairly comprehensive discussion about this on the boards a while ago, but when the site went down I think it disappeared into the ether.

The discussion covered most options and I seem to recall that one possible explanation was that it was not the whole window frame that was removed, but just one half of the sash window, if indeed anything was removed at all.

Although it's not absolutely certain what sort of state the window as a whole was in, we know that it had broken panes, rags stuffed in and was quite possibly nailed shut or fixed in some way. There is probably a good chance that the sash cord which held the window open was broken as well, as they invariably broke whenever they felt like it. If the sash were broken, then the top half of the window would have kept falling down, so it would have been easier just to remove it.

If the newspaper reports stating that the window was taken out were correct, then it it far more likely that they just meant that one half of the window was lifted out, (a very easy job, taking just a minute or two) and they didn't get in a bulldozer to ram raid the place and take out the whole lot.

I suggested some time ago, that one possibility for taking out a bit of the window was that the space was so confined within the room that there was room for the camera, but not the photographer. It would have made sense to put the camera inside the room, which would fit in with the crime scene photo, whilst the photographer stood outside, bending through the window, to actually take the photo.

So you aren't mad Bailey, we can't be certain, but there is a possible explanation.

Regards

Jane

xxxx

[Fisherman]

The whole thing appears in two newspaper reports, actually. But the reports are almost perfect twins, and there is no doubt that the source material is one and the same, just as there seems little doubt that it is wrong altogether.

The best!
Fisherman