the locked door

[Normy]

Hiya all
Not sure if this makes any difference to the matter, but if Blotchy closed the door. I’d think he would have taken the door off the latch and made sure it was properly closed for safety/privacy.
If he saw himself out and wasn’t the killer the door would have stayed that way especially if MJK was asleep.
If MJK closed the door behind him I doubt she’d take it off the latch if she was that drunk or thought trading had finished for the night.

Cheers

Normy

[IchabodCrane]

Well, if the lock was like mine and locked automatically when you shut it, then I guess he just shut the door on the way out?

Best regards

Jane x

Hi Jane,
no the door was locked with a key from outside by the ripper, because the police were not able to open the door even after removal of the window frame, and despite the fact that the latch on the inside of the door was on the near side of the window, within easy reach of just a couple of inches from the broken window even before removing the window frame.
The ripper must have had the key to Mary Kelly's room.
Cheers,
IchabodCrane

[perrymason]

Hi Jane,
no the door was locked with a key from outside by the ripper, because the police were not able to open the door even after removal of the window frame, and despite the fact that the latch on the inside of the door was on the near side of the window, within easy reach of just a couple of inches from the broken window even before removing the window frame.
The ripper must have had the key to Mary Kelly's room.
Cheers,
IchabodCrane

Hi Icabod,

I think you misunderstand the idea of the spring latch. As Jane said, if Mary had set the latch "off" the latch would automatically engage and lock the door when closed. Thats when the window had to be used to access the latch. If it was set "on" by Mary when she left to go drinking Thursday night, the latch would not engage and the door would not be locked.

This is a secondary lock mechanism for the door...the primary system was rendered useless when they lost the key to the room.

All the best.

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Icabod,

I think you misunderstand the idea of the spring latch. As Jane said, if Mary had set the latch "off" the latch would automatically engage and lock the door when closed. Thats when the window had to be used to access the latch. If it was set "on" by Mary when she left to go drinking Thursday night, the latch would not engage and the door would not be locked.

This is a secondary lock mechanism for the door...the primary system was rendered useless when they lost the key to the room.

All the best.

Hi Mike,
yes that's also my understanding of how the lock works. So the vexing question is why did the police break the door when they could have opened it by reaching through the window? The logical answer would be that it could not be opened from the inside (latch) because it was locked from outside with a key (by the ripper).
The police report says that the door smashed against the bedside table when they broke in, indicating that the door was hinged on the far side of the window, and the lock was on the near side, immediately next to the window.
All the best
Ichabod

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,
yes that's also my understanding of how the lock works. So the vexing question is why did the police break the door when they could have opened it by reaching through the window? The logical answer would be that it could not be opened from the inside (latch) because it was locked from outside with a key (by the ripper).
The police report says that the door smashed against the bedside table when they broke in, indicating that the door was hinged on the far side of the window, and the lock was on the near side, immediately next to the window.
All the best
Ichabod

Why the door was forced is a a good question Ichabod, particularly when it was forced by someone who already knew of the window/latch method...McCarthy.

Im not certain that the report accurately reflects the way the door opens, but if it was hung on the right side of the jamb, (as you face the door from the courtyard), then the latch itself would be on the left side of the jamb, and easily reachable via the window.

I think you may be assuming the forcing of the door is proof they had no other way to enter, as the key was lost. As far as we know, no-one had the key to Marys room....it was lost, and since McCarthy forces the door himself, he likely didnt have a copy.

The reality is they forced the door when they knew the latch could have been unlocked via the window. Why.....beyond making a show of it, Im not sure.

Cheers mate

[IchabodCrane]

...and here we have our locked door mystery. Because either the ripper had the key, or McCarthy was acting decidedly suspicious.
I don't think the police would have wanted to make a show of breaking the door. They were waiting for the bloodhounds to arrive, and forced the door after having waited almost two hours. Time enough to figure out how to open the door from the inside, if indeed it could have been opened from inside. This we have to doubt the way the facts present themselves.

There remains a very strong possibility that the ripper was in possession of the key to 13, Miller's Court.

All the best,
IchabodCrane

[perrymason]

...and here we have our locked door mystery. Because either the ripper had the key, or McCarthy was acting decidedly suspicious.
I don't think the police would have wanted to make a show of breaking the door. They were waiting for the bloodhounds to arrive, and forced the door after having waited almost two hours. Time enough to figure out how to open the door from the inside, if indeed it could have been opened from inside. This we have to doubt the way the facts present themselves.

There remains a very strong possibility that the ripper was in possession of the key to 13, Miller's Court.

All the best,
IchabodCrane

I would disagree with that conclusion Ichabod, there was a key, but likely only one, and when it was lost, it would make no sense for Barnett to have feigned he hadnt found it,......since he was still living there and he was the one that shoved his hand through a broken pane to open set the latch on.

I think the Police did make a big show of entering the room to validate their statements that the room was not entered until the door was forced. That was 2 hours after they were gathering in the courtyard. People, like me for one, might think they had been tempted to enter the room before 1:30am to make some notes or take some pictures. That way when all the relevant people are there and ready to go, there would be no need to hold the medical personelle back so the photographers could use the room.

Think about what they had to do in that room for the investigation, and how many men were in that courtyard, how many senior men who would have wanted to look inside the room.....and how large the room was with its furnishings. My bet is no more than 2 or 3 investigators at once in there together, and likely only 1 or 2 for the photos.

If they didnt start before 1:30am, how many sessions of 2 or 3 men at a time would be needed to complete the onsite investigation and satisfy the curiosity of all the senior men in attendance.

I think the door was forced for show. And I think McCarthy did it because he'd use only what force was necessary, he wouldnt want to have to buy a new door. The police wouldnt have cared about that.

Best regards

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Mike,
that the ripper had the key doesn't mean it was Barnett. The key might have been taken by an earlier customer of Mary Jane's.

There is also the interesting possibility that Mary only told Joseph the key was lost, because she didn't want him to have access to her room. She could have kept it to herself and hidden it from him. Then the killer might have taken it from her room and locked the door behind him when he left on Nov 9.

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,
that the ripper had the key doesn't mean it was Barnett. The key might have been taken by an earlier customer of Mary Jane's.

There is also the interesting possibility that Mary only told Joseph the key was lost, because she didn't want him to have access to her room. She could have kept it to herself and hidden it from him. Then the killer might have taken it from her room and locked the door behind him when he left on Nov 9.

We may have an issue with that idea as well Ichabod ...because to our knowledge Mary solicited in the street when Barnett lived there with her, and they moved in together. So effectively until Barnett leaves room 13, we have no reason to surmise Mary ever brought a client into that room. The ONLY man, aside from landlords and associates or one of the Joe's she is seeing, that we dont know the nature of the visit is in fact Blotchy Face...perhaps her first male guest in the room. And she sings for over an hour off and on.

In reality very few people would have known exactly where Mary lived in that courtyard, that her key was lost, and that the room could be accessed by sticking your hand through the broken window pane. A pane broken, I submit, not by a fight which is what the story that is given states, but on purpose, so the latch could be accessed once the key had gone missing. The break is far to convenient an accident,... that the pane which breaks happens to be the best one to reach through the window to the latch.

And 2 panes were broken in that front window.

Cheers Icha

[CountessHappyBunny]

not one of jack's

[QUOTE=perrymason;94424]The escalated mutilation that is present in room 13 is not a logical progression from previous versions of a Jack kill
Its not just more mutilation cause he is indoors, its new mutilation that seemingly offers him nothing in return except the preforming of the acts themselves.


i agree. i don't believe mary was one of jack's victims, and if she was i believe she was the object of the killings from the start.

not only does the crime scene stand out - aside from occasional prostitution, mary doesn't fit jack's victim profile. she's not a habitual alcoholic, she's young and by some reports attractive (by some, not) she rents a room, etc.

the fact that she was killed in her room by someone she either let in or who knew how to get in seems to me to indicate a different killer who figured jack's reputation would serve to cover his crime.

[perrymason]

[QUOTE=CountessHappyBunny;97708]

The escalated mutilation that is present in room 13 is not a logical progression from previous versions of a Jack kill
Its not just more mutilation cause he is indoors, its new mutilation that seemingly offers him nothing in return except the preforming of the acts themselves.


i agree. i don't believe mary was one of jack's victims, and if she was i believe she was the object of the killings from the start.

not only does the crime scene stand out - aside from occasional prostitution, mary doesn't fit jack's victim profile. she's not a habitual alcoholic, she's young and by some reports attractive (by some, not) she rents a room, etc.

the fact that she was killed in her room by someone she either let in or who knew how to get in seems to me to indicate a different killer who figured jack's reputation would serve to cover his crime.

For a new poster youve hit upon some very important differences with this murder Countess, as compares to say Polly's or Annie's ...the only 2 women I believe we can safely say were indeed Ripper victims.

Your idea that the previous victims were what led up to his meaningful kill has been around for a while....he kills the women to scare Mary when he read the headlines to her...she isnt scared off the streets by it, she gives him the boot...and Joe comes back late one night to kill the woman the other 4 Canonicals were murdered to scare from soliciting.

If they had been merely killed, that might have some legs. But most werent, and the ones that had their abdomens mutilated as the focal point of the exercise suggest a killer with goals at each murder site...not one big goal of scaring his girlfriend by killing others.

Cheers Countess.

[John Wheat]

Not Very Likely Is IT?

Perry are you saying there were two maybe more than two killers killing around the same area at around the same time with identical m.o.'s. I don't think this is very likely.

[perrymason]

Perry are you saying there were two maybe more than two killers killing around the same area at around the same time with identical m.o.'s. I don't think this is very likely.

We already know that there were other "mad" killers about at that same time John, the Whitehall and Pinchin Torso's tell that story themselves, and the 7 or 8 women that were attacked that have not been attributed to Jack but were killed while the Ripper case was open and active.

The only identical MO's are the women who matched each other in overall profile, who were actively soliciting outdoors when they met the killer, who fell prey to the killer without noise or obvious struggle, whose throats are cut, who showed no obvious motives by the killer other than murder followed by mutilations, and I believe to be sure....who were mutilated on/in the abdomen specifically.

Mary Ann Nichols
Annie Chapman
Catherine Eddowes

Thats 3 of the Canonicals. There are 5. And some 8 unattributed attacks and murders.

Someone else is probably responsible for Liz, Mary, as well as Emma, Ada, Annie, Martha, Alice, Francis, Elizabeth....(not in order). And perhaps some of these women were assaulted or murdered by men we call Ripper "suspects".....which is the worst use of the word "suspect" Im familiar with. There are suspicions about these men, but they are not "Suspects"...theres no evidence.

So to say there were other men killing whores with knives in 1888 and 1889 in London isnt speculative, its factual.

My position is based on this premise question..."Why should a woman be included as probable Ripper victim?"

That they were killed that Fall isnt enough, that they were killed with knives isnt enough, that they were poor and homeless is relevant as is the fact that they lived in the East End, but more than anything what I think is the litmus test is this sequence is the way Polly dies, Annie dies, seemingly how Kate dies, and not how Liz Stride or Mary dies......Picked-up while soliciting outdoors-Subdue without struggle or appreciable noise when alone in dark spaces-Cut throat when victim cannot resist and is lying down-Open the abdomen.

You find that sequence, my bet is you probably find a Ripper victim.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Perry I Disagree

I disagree the Canonical murders have the same M.O. That is strangulation followed by throats being cut followed by mutilation. Yes admitedly Liz Stride wasn't mutilated however it does seem likely the killer was intertupted. The victims attributable to the Torso Killer were killed using a different M.O. The killers primary aim was also not mutilation. Plus the Torso Killer distributed his victims body parts around the river Thames and at various land locations around London.

You do make some interesting points about finding the Ripper though.

[perrymason]

Youre entitled to your own take on the facts John, just be sure that you have the pertinent facts when making those assessments, because in fact Liz Strides murder does not match the Ripper MO if she is killed by Broadshouldered Man, (if Schwartz told the truth by far the most probable killer) and if he wasnt interrupted.....(adding for this murder that its not like there were partial or incomplete actions with Liz Strides murder, its that she was simply killed and he left, perhaps cut "while falling")......then there is no motivation evident save ending life.

With Mary, it appears by the evidence we are told is trustworthy that her killer must have come to her while she was in her room, most probably sleeping her hangover away. She has defense wounds, the only evidence of a struggle with Jack, if he killed her...and she is taken apart crudely and without reason or logic. The killer showed no skills with either a knife or savvy re: the human body.

The killer of Polly and Annie did, based on the medical authorities Inquest statements.

If you accept a Canon, then you must accept a killer with a flexible MO, 1 thru 5 are not the same....not unheard of by any means, but not a man that mutilates womens abdomens as his primary driver...his reason for killing in the first place.

Cheers again