The Broken Window

[Debra A]

Hello Debs,

Thanks for posting this. As a slight aside, if this article is from 1907, and included in the Sims article, can we connect this with the photograph, found by Don Rumbelow, datewise?

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,
Good question.
Personally, I do think this 1907 sketch is based on the exterior photograph of Miller's Court discovered by Donald Rumbelow. They are almost identical.
We know Sims had been given copies of some of the police photographs including the Miller's Court interior crime scene shot, so it's possible that this was also one of his collection and was reproduced in Lloyd's, although I'm not certain of that.


Good luck, Maria!

[mariab]

Lacassagne's book was called Vacher l'éventreur et les crimes sadiques, not Jacques l'éventreur et les crimes sadiques! (Apologies, I was a bit out of it last night.)

[Phil Carter]

Hello Debs,

Thanks for posting this. As a slight aside, if this article is from 1907, and included in the Sims article, can we connect this with the photograph, found by Don Rumbelow, datewise?

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

Hi Debra,
Well, let's see if the exhibition catalogue (which I hope to be able to see tomorrow) contains any photographs and any detailed captions. I might even try contacting the 3 people who organized this exhibition in Lyon in 2004.
As for the general catalogue of the entire Lacassagne papers, it's located at a BN department a bit faraway from where I am, tomorrow I'll try to see if I can have it relocated close to me, and if not possible, I'll just go and see it.

[Debra A]

Just out of interest, was this sketch of Millers' Court from Lloyd's Weekly 2nd Sept 1907 done from the photograph posted on this thread does anyone know? I think it looks like it was judging by the smashed pane of glass in the upper part of the window and the flat tray type object laying on the ground.
The sketch was included in the article 'My Criminal Museum by George R Sims'



Good work on your above post, Maria, sounds interesting.

[mariab]

I realise that this is not quite the right thread thematically, but I assume that if I start a new thread or burry this information in any of the old threads about the Mary Kelly scene photographs, it might remain unnoticed.
I did a little search in Paris today, and located a printed catalogue of Aléxandre Lacassagne's collection of papers (which are currently located at the Bibliothèque municipale in Lyon), allegedly 222 p. long, but I suspect that this is a typo and it essentially means 22 p., as the same catalogue is listed elsewhere as 24 p. long. (Plus 222 pages is a little EXTREMELY massive for a catalogue, despite the fact that French criminologist Aléxandre Lacassagne was an extremely and admirably prolific scientist, author of – among tons of other books and essays in criminal psychology and forensic medicine – Jacques l'éventreur et les crimes sadiques, 1899.) In addition to this catalogue I located the catalogue for an exhibition which took place at the Bibliothèque municipale in Lyon from January 27 to May 15, 2004: Aléxandre Lacassagne: le médécin et le criminel, 1843-1924. I've no idea of if anyone on casebook has been aware of this exhibition.
Can you imagine the (off, off, off) eventuality of the original photos of the Mary Kelly scene having been displayed among the materials in this exhibition?!?! I'm about to investigate this further next week. I might be able to have a look at the exhibition catalogue on Monday already.

To Rob Clack:
Hi Rob, I'll email you with more details on this soon. I'm also researching Adrien Stock, the editor for all Lacassagne works in Lyon. From Stock's own writings (sometimes under the pen name Gérôme Coquard or Coquart) it strongly appears that he was Jewish, literate, and proficient in medical science. I'll try to find out if any dépôt for his publishing house has survived. Plus I've asked my boss, who was recently in Lyon, to ask around about the Lacassagne family (as I've spotted the name locally on a census search). The fun part is, I didn't even explain him why I'm interested in this, making him an accidental Ripperologist in the process! Were there to be any Lacassagne antecedents in Lyon, it might be worth a shot asking them also about the papers of Adrien Storck, Lacassagne's editor.

[harry]

Bob,
I can see the difference,so it becomes a question as to what I believe,and I believe that in conversation,Barnett told Aberline that the door could be opened by reaching through the window.On studying the photograph of the room,which shows the proximity of the window to the door,I believe that the door could be opened in the manner described.
I cannot be plainer than that,and I believe what I believe because of what Aberline states,that Barnett claimed that both he(Barnett)and Kelly,had used such method.
What we do not know is what kind of lock,catch or latch,secured the door.
Thats my final say on this particulr thread,and I'll leave it up to readers as to whether I am missing the point.

[richardnunweek]

Hello,
The fact is, original photography fails to convince all of us , that a window was broken, even if it was established.
It is a fact that a window was broken, it has been never doubted since day one, and just because our naked eyes are in dispute, it must have existed, otherwise the window trick would have become more complex then it has always appeared to have been.
Regards Richard.

[curious4]

broken window

Hello again,

No, no key on string - the whole point being that the key was lost.

As a lifelong "this will do for now"er (at this moment I have a tea-towel wrapped round the handles of one of my doors to make it stay shut) I think the most probable scenario was this: lost key, probably not a good idea to ask "bully-boy" M´Carthy for a new one, someone, probably Barnett, came up with the idea of wedging the window open just enough to get their fingers in and lift up the sash window and pull the string attached to the door lock. Looking at the picture of the window and with a broad stretch of the imagination you can see something on the window ledge that looks like a stick, which would work, but I think a bit of folded paper is more likely.

Thanks for your mail Bob, will certainly add book to my collection - don´t agree with you about Bowyer, though, he is quoted as saying that the blood on the window alerted him to something being wrong. Answer form not working so have to reply this way.

[DrHopper]

"Can we knock this idea that the photograph of the window 'clearly' shows which panes are broken. I came across this enhanced photograph by Gary Wroe of the outside of the room. All panes of glass in both windows show similar black patches that some people interpret as broken glass. "

They do in that particular enhancement, an enhancement that was not made to bring out the detail within the window area. However, the enhancements on page three of this thread were, and consequently show the breaks in both the upper and lower right panes. In particular, the upper pane has clearly defined edges - that is not an artefact within the photograph, nor the result of a lack of sensitivity.

[Bob Hinton]

Broken Glass

Can we knock this idea that the photograph of the window 'clearly' shows which panes are broken. I came across this enhanced photograph by Gary Wroe of the outside of the room.

All panes of glass in both windows show similar black patches that some people interpret as broken glass. Does that mean that all the panes were broken? No it simply means that the photographic plate was not sensitive enough to depict anything in the room and simply showed it as a black mass.

[Bob Hinton]

Bob,
So what did Barnett claim.
Yes I know,he didn't claim anything,Aberline did the claiming for him.You say your'e not being pedantic?
Following your reasoning,some of what Hutchinson says should be discounted,because Aberline states it is what Hutchinson told him,and yes I can if you want ,illustrate what was written by Aberline,and was not in the statement.
I have missed no point.
The thing about the window,is that we have visual evidence.A photograph.Regardless of who said what,it is apparent by looking at the photo and studying the type of window,a nd noting the broken pane,that access to the door is possible.It does not show the type of lock,so any claim about what type of lock it was is guesswork,and you have indulged in that as much as any other poster.
If you now want to say I should have said Documentary instead of visual evidence,go ahead.I wouldn't put it pass you.

Once again you spectacularly miss the point. You ask:

“So what did Barnett claim.”

I’ve no idea, have you? What I know is that Abberline said that Barnett claimed it was possible to open the door via a broken window. Now if you can’t see the difference between those two statements then there’s no point in continuing.

I am not saying that anything should be discounted – where have I said that? What I am saying is that we must be careful to get our attribution correct.

As for the visual evidence about the window – nonsense! We have a photograph of the window showing some black patches which some people interpret as being broken glass – I don’t.

You keep banging on about it being possible to open the door through a broken window as if I am trying to deny that. Read my posts. I have stated, and I will say again, it is possible to open the door through a broken pane of glass because that is what my experiment shows. We also have the statement by Abberline that Barnett told him it was possible, so those two things tell me it is possible.

[harry]

Bob,
So what did Barnett claim.
Yes I know,he didn't claim anything,Aberline did the claiming for him.You say your'e not being pedantic?
Following your reasoning,some of what Hutchinson says should be discounted,because Aberline states it is what Hutchinson told him,and yes I can if you want ,illustrate what was written by Aberline,and was not in the statement.
I have missed no point.
The thing about the window,is that we have visual evidence.A photograph.Regardless of who said what,it is apparent by looking at the photo and studying the type of window,a nd noting the broken pane,that access to the door is possible.It does not show the type of lock,so any claim about what type of lock it was is guesswork,and you have indulged in that as much as any other poster.
If you now want to say I should have said Documentary instead of visual evidence,go ahead.I wouldn't put it pass you.

[Bob Hinton]

Missed Point

Bob ,
Firstly this is not a court so heresay evidence is not inadmissable.In an investigation police can ask questions of anyone,and the answers noted.Aberline is repeating information given to him, and the name of the person giving it.It is a matter of opinion as regards what one believes.If you want to go to the extreme to make a point,so be it,but if we are to note only what a court would accept,then we are all wasting time here.

As usual you have missed the point entirely. When posting here we have a duty to ensure that what we post is as accurate as possible, otherwise our errors are built upon slowly but surely until the most inaccurate piece of information is sworn to be fact - something we have all seen time and time again.

You started your post by saying:

"The first thing to understand is that Barnett claimed that the door was opened by reaching through the window."

Now whatever way you want to look at it that statement is just plain wrong. It's not question of being pedantic just a desire to see that we hold ourselves to the highest standard of accuracy, otherwise we run the risk of degenerating into just another third rate web site.

[harry]

Bob ,
Firstly this is not a court so heresay evidence is not inadmissable.In an investigation police can ask questions of anyone,and the answers noted.Aberline is repeating information given to him, and the name of the person giving it.It is a matter of opinion as regards what one believes.If you want to go to the extreme to make a point,so be it,but if we are to note only what a court would accept,then we are all wasting time here.