The Broken Window

[Chava]

Wow. I honestly don’t know what the fuss is about. Seriously, there is no mystery here.

Oh gosh, OK. That solves that then. Anyone for Zodiac?

[The Good Michael]

Hi Mike
Doubt whether there would have been much legal protection for tennants in those days and little chance of McCarthy being prosecuted.

Unimportant. Do you think McCarthy would have said, "Let's just reach in through the broken window that I've known about and unlock the door rather than break it down." I think not.

Mike

[DrHopper]

Just read this thread in its entirety for the first time.

Wow. I honestly don’t know what the fuss is about. Seriously, there is no mystery here.

Firstly – clearly, and without any doubt, it is the two panes nearest the passage that were broken – upper and lower. This is visible from the photograph, and from the witness testimony. I think any argument presented to the contrary is to make a mountain out of a molehill, and look for zebras upon hearing hooves.

Secondly – broken glass is not that sharp. Seriously. You can run your finger over a scalpel blade if you do it against the edge (and softly obviously) – cheap and crappily made victorian glass is no match for surgical steel. Talk of amputation and serious injury are MASSIVELY overstating the problem. And that is precisely what MJK and others would be doing – arm in, brushing against the edge of the glass, not stopping and running it up and down in a sawing movement. It would be foolish, but doable, even in bare skin, but that surely is the point; no one, in the depths of a London winter would have bare arms, leaving aside the Victorian mores re: bare arms. So I will state, as someone with experience, that there is absolutely no danger presented by a broken window, particularly in a winter coat. If there was blood on that glass (and I personally think not), then it was Kelly’s (although it may have been transferred via a policeman who moved from the body to check the window pane).

Thirdly – to judge from the brick distances from corner to door frame (and all that which was presented above) the latch would be no more than 18 inches away from the broken window pane – doable even for a person of small stature.

And as has been noted above, the killer would simply have left the room pulling the door behind him, and *click* the door is locked.

As for who that was, well… we all have our suspects.

[packers stem]

Sally,

I believe that McCarthy wouldn't have wanted to admit knowing about the broken window (had he known) as it had been broken for maybe 10 days and should have been fixed. He might have come into question over it and could have been in trouble for negligence if not more.

Mike

Hi Mike
Doubt whether there would have been much legal protection for tennants in those days and little chance of McCarthy being prosecuted.

[Chava]

Hi Sally,

I thought for a long time that McCarthy could have been MJK's killer because he obviously claimed he did not have a key otherwise he would not have broken the door down. Which, since he was the landlord, I still find hard to believe. He's still not entirely off the hook for me, although these days I incline more to the Blotchy-Faced gent seen in MJK's company that night. Now, however, I am thinking about the possibility of a completely random killer. This is all courtesy of the blood-on-the-glass Bowyer report that I found in the files. Which could, of course either by a journo's lie or a Bowyer lie or a complete misunderstanding!

All that having been said, McCarthy could simply have been in shock. He had seen the body before the police did and it was a horrible sight. In which case, the cops said 'break it down' and he obediently went and got an axe. I doubt too many people were thinking coherently at that moment.

[Rubyretro]

I think that you are fabulously logical Sally -and I really look forward to reading all your future Posts !

(by which I mean to say "Welcome" too -but I still think of myself as 'green', so I didn't do so before).

[Sally]

Hi Mike

See, that's what I mean - I hadn't thought of that! But yes, that does make sense.

Perhaps in that case - if he did know - he felt under no obligation to fix the window - presumably additional outlay for him - when his tenants were weeks behind with the rent?

[The Good Michael]

Sally,

I believe that McCarthy wouldn't have wanted to admit knowing about the broken window (had he known) as it had been broken for maybe 10 days and should have been fixed. He might have come into question over it and could have been in trouble for negligence if not more.

Mike

[Sally]

Hi All - and thank you Fisherman, Chava and Stephen for your kind welcome.

With regard to door locks - I know virtually nothing at all, although it is apparent, as several people have pointed out here, that in this case the door lock was a spring lock - I imagine this would be in essence similar to that type of lock still in use today - the ubiquitous ‘Yale’ lock? I think that would have offered a fair level of security - the area was notorious, so that seems reasonable.

There is much to fascinate in the Kelly case, and I have often wondered why, since it was apparently ‘quite easy’ to open the door from the inside by reaching in through the broken window once the key had been lost; the door was eventually forced on the 9th November by McCarthy. Would it not have been easier to employ the method used by Kelly and Barnett, and reach through the window to open the door from inside?

But perhaps when the door was forced at around 1.30pm that day those present on site didn’t yet know about Kelly and Barnett’s method of entry. I would expect McCarthy to have known about it, but perhaps not. Perhaps the small details of his tenants’ lives - how they gained access to his property - were of less interest to him than say, damage to his property - such as the broken windows.

I think it is clear from Abberline’s inquest testimony that Barnett told him how he and Kelly had been gaining entry to No. 13. Barnett, I think, did not turn up at the scene until sometime in the afternoon - was this before or after the door was forced? I would be interested to know.

It’s a possibility which would make sense. I’m sure there are others I haven’t thought of!

[The Good Michael]

I'm sorry I just cannot understand why people seem always to be seeking the most exotic, difficult ways of doing anything. Why would the killer have to reach in through the window etc? All he had to do was to release the snib and the door woould have locked automatically behind him!

Bob,

I was just looking for a possibility for the blood on the window, given that it wasn't arterial spray. He certainly could have reached in and made sure it was latched, especially if he wasn't familiar with the latching mechanism. It isn't very important anyway.

Mike

[Bob Hinton]

Broken Glass

The killer, after leaving Kelly, reached through the broken window pane, that he was familiar with, and latched the door. His fingers had blood on them from the slaughter and left their marks on the glass. Who knew about the broken window? Barnett, Kelly, Mccarthy, Bowyer, Blotchy (maybe), all denizens of the court? Sure, why not?

Mike

I'm sorry I just cannot understand why people seem always to be seeking the most exotic, difficult ways of doing anything. Why would the killer have to reach in through the window etc? All he had to do was to release the snib and the door woould have locked automatically behind him!

[Rubyretro]

I'm still with you, Harry.

I think that Mary would lock the door. Although, people did leave doors open
then as now, it all depends where you live. As you said, Harry, Mary may have had few possessions, but I don't think that she'd want them stolen
(nor McCarthey's picture or furniture). Also, she was holding those clothes for someone, and they could be pawned (I don't think that it was her who burned them, either). Considering that the homeless had to doss in Itchy Park, there had to be the possibility that she might come home to find someone asleep in her bed too !

I think that it would be just human nature to lock the door when she went to bed (even if there was access via the window) -you feel vulnerable asleep, alone, in the dark. Personally, I speculate that even drunk, it would be a reflex to stagger to the door and put the catch down, or mutter to Blotchy to do it.

I think that her killer saw her open the door via the window, watched her to make sure that she was alone, and in bed asleep -and then carefully let himself in using the same method, locking the door behind him.

[harry]

Bob,
I quite understand what you are saying,but like all explanations,it relies on supposition.As does mine.We just have different opinions.
My take is this.After blotchy leaves,Kelly,though under the influence of drink, and through perhaps habit,or a sense of security,sets the latch/catch so that the door cannot be opened from the outside, and retires to bed.
The killer then has to reach through the window to open the door.
We both have to rely on supposition to explain Blotch's exit,because it was not observed.
Consequently we have to explain Hutchinson's statement of seeing her enter her room with another man,who also left without being observed to do so.
My explanation for this is that Hutchinson lied,there was no other man.That Hutchinson himself was the only person to enter that room after blotchy had left.In doing so,we must allow that the door could have been catched,but that Hutchinson knew of the method of uncatching through the window.This might be explained by two things.That Hutchinson was Blotchy and had seen Kelly use the method at midnight,or through his association with her, had heard of the method.
So I differ from you.I do not claim you are wrong,or I am right.For my part I prefer the one man scenario.I am uncomfortable with all the different comings and goings of Kelly,and the different characters that are introduced.

[Chava]

If the lock was a spring lock--and it was--no reason at all for the killer to reach through after he murdered MJK. Just walk out the door and close it.

However the existence of the broken window allows for the possibility of a completely random murder who never ever had anything to do with the victim and so was never seen with her. Not much good to us, as a random murderer-(I'll call him Mr RM from now on) will not find his name or description in the police files at all.

The Russell Williams case has just concluded in Canada. I wouldn't recommend checking up on all the gory details, the guy makes the Ripper, who killed his victims quickly and then had his fun, look like a model of humanity. But it's clear that Williams found his last victim by creepy-crawling a neighbourhood at night. He looked through a basement window and saw her working out. Given that unpleasant piece of knowledge, I don't think it's impossible that a person such as Mr RM might be creepy-crawling through Millers Court in the small hours, saw a broken window with some sort of covering that he could pull back a bit, and a handily-placed broken pane, looked inside, saw a sleeping woman and simply let himself in.

[Stephen Thomas]

Pride of our Alley

...and that's as good as anybodys first post is gonna be. Welcome to the boards, Sally - and keep it up. I believe you are right on the money here.

The best,
Fisherman

Tell me about it. That was something special.

Hi Sally

This is a totally silly discussion but it pops up now and then and invites much nonsensical opinion. The lock was a spring lock which could be opened by hand from the inside but needed a key from the outside. The key had been lost but the window was broken and so it was possible to reach through the broken bottom right pane (and no other) and unlock the door.