Jack had to slip up

[NOV9]

120 years later and we are still facinated with the Ripper.

I read that John McCarthy broke the door open, under the direction of Superintendent Arnold.

However John and Boyer looked through the window, and then informed the police.
John would have had to move the coat, that was hanging up to cover the hole in the window, to look in.

My guess is that John or Boyer had to install the lock or knew of the lock on the door, to just reach in and
Slide it back, just like Joe Barnett had informed Inspector Frederic G. Abberline and exclamed
It is quite easy.

Why the dramatics on the part of John McCarthy. I am just asking questions not expecting anyone to mind read John McCarthy. Sense no one knows whom Jack is for sure, I guess it is OK to analyze the details until something comes apart.

Signitures are very important to Jack, it is his way of communicating about what he is doing and how he is feeling.

In a ways he is telling us whom he is.

[Sam Flynn]

My guess is that John or Boyer had to install the lock or knew of the lock on the door, to just reach in and
Slide it back

If they'd assumed that it had been locked with a key, then the thought might not have occurred to them. As the key had only recently gone missing it's possible that neither Bowyer nor McCarthy knew about it.

just like Joe Barnett had informed Inspector Frederic G. Abberline and exclamed It is quite easy.

If only Barnett had been there to tell them, before they decided to force the issue!

Why the dramatics on the part of John McCarthy.

It needn't necessarily have required any dramatics. By easing the point (or chisel-tip) of the axe between the door and the frame could have allowed it to be levered open, causing only local damage to the area around the lock.

[paul emmett]

If they'd assumed that it had been locked with a key, then the thought might not have occurred to them. As the key had only recently gone missing it's possible that neither Bowyer nor McCarthy knew about it.
If only Barnett had been there to tell them, before they decided to force the issue!
It needn't necessarily have required any dramatics. By easing the point (or chisel-tip) of the axe between the door and the frame could have allowed it to be levered open, causing only local damage to the area around the lock.

Hi, Sam.

The key had not RECENTLY gone missing. Abberline says Barnett says, "the key has been missing for some time." McCarthy would have to know. Also since the window was broken, what Oct 30?, recently, we have to wonder how they got in before that.

Paley says Barnett WAS there, and while I'm not sure what we think of that, it might complicate matters.

The papers say the door was forced with a pickaxe, and while you are right, the door didn't have to be broken down necessarily, it still seems that if it was as Abberline says, "quite simple," SOMEONE would have known--or figured it out.

I realize the spring lock and all the rest of this has been discussed "a bit," but I still hear Rumbelow's words from a while back: "SOMEONE had a key and used it, which is why the door had to be forced."

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Paul,

Paley says Barnett WAS there. I still hear Rumbelow's words from a while back: "SOMEONE had a key and used it, which is why the door had to be forced."

Bruce Paley cites a single source (Lloyd's News) for Barnett's "being there", and he only states that this happened "sometime in the early afternoon" - which could have been after 13:30 for all we know. I can't recall any contemporary source that attests to Barnett being at Miller's Court before the door was forced.

With regards to Rumbelow's assertion that "somebody had a key and used it...". Well, Rumbelow was wrong on this occasion. The fact that the "window trick" was possible makes it rather clear that nobody needed a key to "lock" or "unlock" that door.

As to the key being missing for "some time" and McCarthy somehow having to know, it largely depends on how long "some time" meant and whether or not McCarthy had been told about it. Without knowing otherwise, a door secured by a shot bolt would be indistinguishable from one secured by a key, and I hardly think that McCarthy would wilfully damage his door if he knew of a safer way to gain entry.

[paul emmett]

With regards to Rumbelow's assertion that "somebody had a key and used it...". Well, Rumbelow was wrong on this occasion. The fact that the "window trick" was possible makes it rather clear that nobody needed a key to "lock" or "unlock" that door.

As to the key being missing for "some time" and McCarthy somehow having to know, it largely depends on how long "some time" meant and whether or not McCarthy had been told about it. Without knowing otherwise, a door secured by a shot bolt would be indistinguishable from one secured by a key, and I hardly think that McCarthy would wilfully damage his door if he knew of a safer way to gain entry.

Hi, Sam.

Right. "McCarthy wouldn't willfully damage his own door if he knew of a safer way to gain entry." Isn't that Rumbelow's point? You are right again: there is a chance, that McCarthy would not have known of the missing key. BUT I say he must know what kind of locks are on his doors. And he knew the window was broken and he must have known simple measurements, so there we are. And how dumb could the police have been anyways? "Quite simple!"

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
The lock argument has always been a intresting topic, it is right to assume that the door to number 13 appeared to have been securely locked when the police arrived, it is also correct to assume that the landlord of the property would have been asked if he had a key to gain entry, and it would have been proper, when it became apparent that the only method of entry would be to force the lock for McCarthy to supply the muscle.
That appears to be a logic opinion, however what the mystery is, if the lock was a spring one and access through the window was possible why would the intelligence of the police present not have tried to unlock from the inside?.
The logical explanation is they did , but finding the door had been locked with a key had no alternative but to prise open the door.
So i must go with the theory 'That someone had a key and used it'
Questions.
Did her killer take the key some time before so that he could obtain entry at his leisure, although how could he be sure that the lock would not have been changed after?
Was her killer fully aware that if he had the only key then MJK could only use the window method to slip the bolt and he could enter via the door?
It would appear using logic that the key had only been missing since the 30th october, as the window trick could only have been used since then, it is a reasonable theory that the panes of glass were broken on purpose in order to gain entry to the room , for if the key had gone missing before then Mjk would have had to get another key which would have meant that Kelly could have secured her room and if she had the habit of leaving the key in the lock once locking her door then the killer could not have obtained access.
So questions and answer time.
Who broke the window.?
Answer Joseph Barnett.
Who had access to the key?
Answer. anybody who visited her room including Joseph Barnett.
Why did her killer need a key?
Answer. if a close associate of the victim he without a key would have had to use the window trick, therefore the police would have suspected someone close to the deseased.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

BUT I say he must know what kind of locks are on his doors. And he knew the window was broken and he must have known simple measurements, so there we are.

There was more to a spring-lock than that, Paul. Sure, the bolt shoots across and effectively locks the door (to all appearances), and the bold may be slid back - but only if the bolt hadn't been secured by means of a key. If the assumption was that it had been secured with a key, then there would have been no point in attempting to slide back the bolt from the outside.

[paul emmett]

Hello, Richard. That's a lot of questions. Let me try an easy one: I don't think that in that neighborhood they changed locks much--which is one reason that I am surprised McCarthy didn't have a spare key.

Next, I'm not even sure about the key only missing since 10/30. " For some time" seems further back to me. And Barnett talking about how THEY used to open the door seems strange itself since he moved out on the 30th, and couldn't have done much reaching through the glass since.

Finally, let me ask you a few, if I might. If what you--and Rumbelow--say about a key being used is right, and while I don't think that theory will get universal support here, I tend to go with it, IF that's right, then where does that leave Abberline? Why would he quote Barnett's story(if it was B's story) when he knew it to be false? Espescially since for some of us his story doesn't make the police look so smart.

Also, I wasn't sure what the implication of your last point was. Are you saying that a relative stranger might have done the key thing to make it look like the killer was a close friend?

Hi, Sam. I didn't know that about spring locks; indeed, I thought that those long lock threads from back awhile implied that bolted and keyed were the same. I must admit it didn't seem right then. OK so it's bolted but not keyed and the police can't be sure which. They look in, see mutilation and think--right or wrong--JTR. Why would they think JTR would use a key? Wouldn't they think he'd just closed/locked the door behind him?? Wouldn't they at least check??? And along with this we have the possibilities that Joe is there, and/or McC. knows the key is missing. Come on!

[NOV9]

Jack had to slip

Happy Birthday Sam!

Joe Barnett exclaimed how easy it was to unlock the door from the outside of the broken window.
He and Mary used to open the door from the window like that all the time.

In fact two panels of glass was missing, according to Mr George Bagster Phillips, divisional surgeon of police, two panes in the lesser window were broken, as the door was locked he said.

This sounds like he was saying it was done on purpose to gain access to the room.

Can you imagine Mary with a customer, unlocking the door with him standing behind her, watching how she had to get into the room?

It is no wonder Mary even bothered to lock her door after she left the room. It was not like she had any money stashed away in there, she still owed a bit of rent, how good hearted of John McCarthy, to let her get so far behind on her rent, he is loosing money. This is not what you do in a low-income place, with so many paying customers. So why did he think She had any money to pay the rent the day he sent Bowyer to collect?

Sounds like a trade off to me. After all she was in her 20’s and attractive.

I know after a while of having to reach through the window all the time to unlock the door,
She may have just left it open, “just a thought”, considering she was really drunk at times and it would have been a real problem to unlock that door. So why would it matter if someone had a key or not? She could lock it from the inside and she was safe, so long as not too many people saw how she unlocked to gain entrance.

What really gets me is the fact that 2 panes were missing, and you could just reach in, and move the coat aside to see the whole room, why would John McCarthy damage his door to open it, a landlord with no spare keys? and as you say it was a real common lock in those days. They had to be cheap for a shed like that.

Maybe John McCarthy did not want the police to think he could have opened the door the way Joe and Mary did.

Is it possible to get a picture of the common lock that was used in those days?

[perrymason]

Hi folks, Two panes of glass were broken on the right window, closest to the corner, however one was at the top left pane, of the rows of panes on that window and the other was the lower right. The first one mentioned would serve no purpose either in accessing the muslin curtain to move it aside, as Bowyer said he did, or in accessing the Spring Latch, which through many go-rounds with my friends Ben and Sam.. ...is only really relevant in this case if it was "off the latch", and Mary was inside when the killer came in.

Since Barnett used the window method himself, you can effectively rule out him holding a door key that was thought to be lost, unless he lied of course.

Its fairly important that the quote regarding McCarthy's instructions to Bowyer are read correctly, for they clearly indicate that there was no pre-arranged showdown with Mary over the arrears, that the amount he was to collect was not specific, and he was just to "see about" collecting.

Its a pivotal point when assessing what compulsion or immediate need would cause a whore who is fed, drunk, and singing indoors to a friend in a room she did not need to pay for that night, to then sober up, and hit the streets earning...in the pouring rain...without anyone but a discredited witness coming 4 days late to the show with his story,... to use as support for the conjecture.

My best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Its a pivotal point when assessing what compulsion or immediate need would cause a whore who is fed, drunk, and singing indoors to a friend in a room she did not need to pay for that night, to then sober up, and hit the streets earning...in the pouring rain...

Try telling that to Mrs Cox or Elizabeth Prater, Mike, but please let's not turn this into a "Kelly stayed in" thread. If you must force that agenda to the surface again, please consider opening another thread. No ill-will intended, BTW - just praying that we can try keep things neat around here after the crash.

Nov9 - thanks for the birthday greets

[Chava]

...and the above is why I like McCarthy for Kelly and have done for a very long time. He was her landlord and landlords have keys to their residences. Kelly's key was missing. The door was locked. McCarthy broke it down instead of running up and getting his key. Also I cannot believe it was just by chance that he told off Boyer to go and see if he could get some rent from Kelly. If I knew that horror was just next door I'd want it discovered asap as well! (Of course if McCarthy--apparently a charming man--was the Ripper, which I doubt, but is by no means impossible, he would want to see his work displayed as he would wish.)

[Sam Flynn]

He was her landlord and landlords have keys to their residences.

That doesn't necessarily follow in the case of slums like Miller's Court, Chava.

[Chava]

Sam, I think it is even more likely there. Those tenants were extremely high risk for flitting. So the landlord would have felt the necessity to be able to go in and check to see whether they looked like they were in funds or not. Certainly Rachman's people had keys in all those slums in the 50s. They were forever going down Notting Hill and beating the **** out of tenants in their own bedsits.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, I think it is even more likely there.

I wish I could share your certainty, Chava. Of course, even if McCarthy did have a spare key, it's possible that he himself could have lost, mislaid and/or couldn't find it in the heat of the moment. This was, after all, no ordinary morning in Miller's Court.