Originally posted by KatBradshaw
					
						
						
							
							
							
							
								
								
								
								
								
									View Post
								
							
						
					
				
				
			
		How long was the killer in the room?
				
					Collapse
				
			
		
	X
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 the killer didn't know if anyone was going to come or not. his murders were a natural progression in viciousness. so it's only understandable just as his killings evolved, his caution levels probably also evolved. he was very nearly caught at the Chapman crime scene and could've been seen at the Stride scene. taking a woman into her private room to kill her on one hand shows that he was being more cautious getting off the street. but at the same time, it was a situation that he had not been in before. and he had to be keenly aware that if anyone came to the door, he was caught. it could've been someone coming to ask for a spoonful of sugar. whatever the reason, he would've been caught. so I personally think it's ludicrous to think that he dallied around for another 2 hours after his victim screamed "murder!".
 
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Hello you all!
 
 Kat, I agree with you in that sense, that JtR could have picked MJK intentionally. The most likely reason for this; the girls outside were better prepared for him than earlier. Mary Kelly probably thought herself to be safe indoors...
 
 Pontius; in fact, my own estimation has been that 30 minutes. The reason,why the women weren't taken seriously; my impression is, that their statements didn't quite fit with the other ones!
 
 All the best
 Jukka"When I know all about everything, I am old. And it's a very, very long way to go!"
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 If he was a native of the East End I think he would know that such cries would be ignored!Originally posted by Pontius2000 View Postthe killer didn't know if anyone was going to come or not. his murders were a natural progression in viciousness. so it's only understandable just as his killings evolved, his caution levels probably also evolved. he was very nearly caught at the Chapman crime scene and could've been seen at the Stride scene. taking a woman into her private room to kill her on one hand shows that he was being more cautious getting off the street. but at the same time, it was a situation that he had not been in before. and he had to be keenly aware that if anyone came to the door, he was caught. it could've been someone coming to ask for a spoonful of sugar. whatever the reason, he would've been caught. so I personally think it's ludicrous to think that he dallied around for another 2 hours after his victim screamed "murder!".
 Surely if other serial killers teach us anything of the evolution of a killer it is that they become less cautious and even reckless which ultimately lead them to be caught.In order to know virtue, we must first aquaint ourselves with vice! 
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Yes that is very true!Originally posted by j.r-ahde View PostHello you all!
 Kat, I agree with you in that sense, that JtR could have picked MJK intentionally. The most likely reason for this; the girls outside were better prepared for him than earlier. Mary Kelly probably thought herself to be safe indoors...In order to know virtue, we must first aquaint ourselves with vice! 
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Hello David!
 
 Well, if we can relate JtR to the other serial killers to any extent:
 
 1. He could have found the first murder bad, the second one easier etc.
 
 2. Since he didn't get caught, he thought himself as an unmistakable superhuman!
 
 Yes, extremely bad thoughts, no doubt about it!
 
 All the best
 Jukka"When I know all about everything, I am old. And it's a very, very long way to go!"
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Lock
 
 I apologize for seeming condescending in my earlier post. My awkward point was meant to propose a closer look at the evidence before theorizing. The Kelly conspiracy post was what mainly caught my eye.From KatI think I am the only person who has mentioned Kelly being chosen and I did stress that I did not mean in a Royal Conspiracy kind of way. All I meant was that the killer may have observed that she had a room and that there was no man living with her at that time. That way he would not be worried about being disturbed and if the hypothesis that he just tried her door and found it open is right then he was sure he wasn't going to find another man in there. I personally don't ascribe to that theory.
 
 As to the latch, and I am quoting Sugden-'Joe Barnett later told Abberline that the key had been missing for some time. The door had a spring lock that fastened automatically when it was pulled to but the catch could easily be moved back from the outside by reaching through the broken window.'
 
 Best Wishes,
 HunterBest Wishes,
 Hunter
 ____________________________________________
 When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
  
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 That's quite true, Hunter, but if the spring lock was left on the latch (acheived by flicking a switch on the lock itself) the lock would be prevented from engaging even when the door is closed. This appears to have occured on the night of Kelly's death.The door had a spring lock that fastened automatically
 
 Best regards,
 Ben
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Hi Ben,Originally posted by Ben View PostThat's quite true, Hunter, but if the spring lock was left on the latch (acheived by flicking a switch on the lock itself) the lock would be prevented from engaging even when the door is closed. This appears to have occured on the night of Kelly's death.
 
 Best regards,
 Ben
 
 I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the spring automatically reset itself once the door was open- in other words the catch couldn't hold it open once released. At least that was the impression I got from Barnett. The spring was sprung- so to speak. If someone knows that was not the case- I stand corrected.
 
 It was certainly locked when the body was discovered.
 
 Best Wishes,
 Hunter
 
 
 Best Wishes,
 HunterBest Wishes,
 Hunter
 ____________________________________________
 When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
  
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Many spring locks can be put on the latch though can't they? Then you can lock it properly as well. Mind you given that the door could be opened through the window makes little sense locking it at all.In order to know virtue, we must first aquaint ourselves with vice! 
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Exactly Kat,Originally posted by KatBradshaw View PostMany spring locks can be put on the latch though can't they? Then you can lock it properly as well. Mind you given that the door could be opened through the window makes little sense locking it at all.
 
 That's why I was under the impression that the lock was used to keep the door shut- i.e. broken or missing door knob- instead of security. Could be wrong though. Maybe she figured no one would think about reaching through the window.
 
 As far as a previous suggestion that a drunken Mary might have problems opening the door through the window, she had repeatedly done this enough times to be able to do it automatically- as long as she was conscious enough.
 
 
 Best Wishes,
 HunterBest Wishes,
 Hunter
 ____________________________________________
 When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
  
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 Hi Hunter,
 
 The spring only resets itself (i.e. locks) automatically if the lock is unlatched. If a switch is flicked on the lock mechanism itself, the door is then considered "on the latch", which means the lock cannot engage even when the door is closed. It is a convenience more than anything else, desgined to avoid the tedium of the occupant constantly locking and unlocking the door for short journeys to and from the premises. Obviously the killer would have un-latched the door upon entering the dwelling in the "intruder" scenario, which I currently favour.I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the spring automatically reset itself once the door was open- in other words the catch couldn't hold it open once released.
 
 All the best,
 Ben
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
 where do you get that from? Mrs Maxwell has the coroner in her favor. he said that rigor mortis advanced while they were examining MJK in the room. if she had been killed at 2 or 3 in the morning, rigor mortis would've been completed before they got the door open. the food in her stomach was only partly digested. again, this should have been completed if she was killed at 2 or 3. food continues to digest after death. so actually, it's the people who say MJK was killed at 2 or 3am that have everything going against them. I can't safely say that she was killed at 10am. but I think it's pretty safe to assume that she died later than 3am.Originally posted by DVV View PostHi Pontius,
 
 Mrs Maxwell has everything and everyone against her.
 Phillips, Bond, Diddles, Cox...
 Why do you "tend to give her some credence" ?
 
 Amitiés,
 David
 
 edit: no doubt I made my point decisive with Diddles.
 Comment
- 
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	

Comment