Window Removal

[Bailey]

Howdy all, and notably Mr Hutchinson as this concerns a conversation with him.

A little while back on a Mary Kelly thread I can't find, I made mention of having read that the window of Kelly's room was removed to take the photos. Philip seemed dubious and I concurred that it seemed odd, but was still sure I'd read it somewhere.

Currently reading "The Ripper File" by Jones & Lloyd (based on the Barlow & Watt TV series), I found a reference to it;


From The Sunday Times, Nov 11, 1988

(A first paragraph, followed by a "note by Watt," then...)

"Mr Arnold, having satisfied himself that the woman was dead, ordered one of the windows to be removed."

Now this can't be where I'd heard it previously, as I've not read this book before, but it is something along the lines of proof that I'm not a total looney.

It then follows on with a description of the body and reference to a photographer taking "photographs of the body, the organs, the room and its contents." Hey, Philip, while you're finding photos, how about some of those, matey?

B.

Edit - referring to "The Ripper File," Elwyn Jones & John Lloyd, Futura paperback 1975, page 62

[RJM]

Don Rumbelow writes about the window being removed in his book.

I am skeptical this ever happened because we know Arnold ordered the door to be forced open. If he ordered the window to be removed for a photograph there would be no need to force the door open.

Cheers,

Robert

[Bailey]

Hey RJM

Probably in Rumbelow that I first saw it, then. I had a memory that it was the whole window frame, rather than just a pane or something. But as you say, with that done, they'd see that the door could be opened. Unless maybe it was the further window from the door?

No axe to grind on this issue, mind you, just saw the reference and I thought I'd bring it up again.

Another thought though - would this tally up with photos / drawings - which my possibly faulty brain seems to recollect - of the windows being boarded up?

Cheers,
B.

[RJM]

Hi Bailey,

After Mary Kelly's body was removed to Shoreditch mortuary just after 4pm, both windows were boarded up and the door locked. Constables were also posted at the entrance to Millers Court to keep the curious away.

This is the sketch you are probably referring to:
http://photos.casebook.org/displayim...?album=6&pos=4

Robert

[George Hutchinson]

Firstly, apologies to Bailey for initially thinking he was talking rot. It's clearly in some of the reports of the time.

However, I certainly concur with Rob that I find it extremely unlikely it actually happened. I mean, what a lot of effort for - presumably - virtually no return. It would have been perfectly easy for Joseph Martin to have placed his camera lens through one of the broken window panes. If you could stick an arm through it to open the door, why not the front of a camera? I can see no use whatsoever in taking the frame out.

PHILIP

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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 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

[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.