The Broken Window

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bob,

Please cite the relevant inquest evidence.

Many thanks.

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

It would be totally impossible for anybody to open the door by hand from anywhere else but a hole in the lower right hand pane.

[Stewart P Evans]

Window Pane

I disagree. Evidence given at the inquest makes it quite clear the two broken panes were lower left and upper right.

I disagree.

It is far from clear. You are basing your argument on the confused and confusing evidence of Thomas Bowyer. In his main evidence Bowyer stated, "There was a broken window in the farthest window." That, of course, should be read as, "There was a broken window [pane] in the farthest window." That is incorrect. That is, of course, if you take the largest window in 13 Miller's Court as 'the farthest window.' This largest window contained 20 smaller panes of glass, none of which was stated to be, or appears to be, broken.

Obviously challenged on this point Bowyer then stated, "...I mean the farthest pane of the first window the small one". One has to say that it can only be guessed at as to what Bowyer meant by 'farthest', although I would agree that common sense would dictate that it should mean the bottom left pane of the four panes in the smaller window.

However, examination of my 1966 copy of the photograph which was printed from a first-generation copy negative of the original photograph clearly shows the top right pane to have a large break taking out most of the glass. Not quite so clear, but visible nonetheless, is a large break in the upper half of the bottom right pane. Examination of the lower left pane reveals no sign of a break at all. Taken in conjunction with Abberline's clear statement that, "...the key has been missing for some time & that they [i.e. Kelly and Barnett] opened the door by reaching through the window..." indicates that it was the lower right pane that was also broken.

[harry]

Why was it neccessary to reach through the broken pane.Could not the lower half of the window be pushed up?

[Jane Coram]

Hi Harry,

I suspect that you are as familiar with the joys of sash windows as I am.

As you say, wouldn't it have been easier to put your hand through either of the broken window panes and just release the catch inside, (which was in the very centre of the window where the wood crosses) and open the window to climb in?

I suspect that the sash had broken in the window, and that someone had nailed the window shut at some time or other to stop the window rattling and the top half continuously falling down. I can't think of any other reason they wouldn't have taken the easy route to get back indoors!

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[Bob Hinton]

The Broken Window

I'm in the States at the moment so don't have access to the records however the inquest testimony makes it quite clear that the two panes that were broken were bottom left and top right.

[Bob Hinton]

Broken Glass

Having now returned and having access to the records I hope I can now show precisely which of the panes of glass were broken. First we hear from Thomas Bowyer at the inquest of MJK. He states:

“I went round the corner and there was a broken window in the furthest window”

This of course makes no sense and Inspector Ledger of G Division who had made accurate plans of the crime scene (where are they now?) rises to his feet to point this out. He produces his plans and passes them to Bowyer who then states.

“I refer to the plans and I mean the farthest pane of the first window, the small one”

Now this proves without a doubt that one of the left hand panes of glass in the first window you come to after coming round the corner is broken.

Which one? For that we refer to the statement of Dr Phillips. He says:

“There are two windows in the court. Two of the panes in the window nearest the passage were broken and finding the door locked, I looked through the lower broken pane”

Now we know that either of the two left hand panes is broken. Phillips states that the two broken panes consist of one high and one low. To stand any chance of reaching the lock on the door you must reach in through the upper right, the lower right is too low. So the upper right is broken and Phillips looked through the lower of the two broken panes which rules out upper left which only leaves lower left.

Therefore I submit the two broken panes can only be upper right and lower left.

[Stewart P Evans]

Confused

Having now returned and having access to the records I hope I can now show precisely which of the panes of glass were broken. First we hear from Thomas Bowyer at the inquest of MJK. He states:
“I went round the corner and there was a broken window in the furthest window”
This of course makes no sense and Inspector Ledger of G Division who had made accurate plans of the crime scene (where are they now?) rises to his feet to point this out. He produces his plans and passes them to Bowyer who then states.

“I refer to the plans and I mean the farthest pane of the first window, the small one”
Now this proves without a doubt that one of the left hand panes of glass in the first window you come to after coming round the corner is broken.
Which one? For that we refer to the statement of Dr Phillips. He says:
“There are two windows in the court. Two of the panes in the window nearest the passage were broken and finding the door locked, I looked through the lower broken pane”
Now we know that either of the two left hand panes is broken. Phillips states that the two broken panes consist of one high and one low. To stand any chance of reaching the lock on the door you must reach in through the upper right, the lower right is too low. So the upper right is broken and Phillips looked through the lower of the two broken panes which rules out upper left which only leaves lower left.
Therefore I submit the two broken panes can only be upper right and lower left.

I have already covered all of this by quoting Bowyer's confused and confusing evidence, it would appear he didn't know the meaning of 'farthest'. Therefore I submit that Bowyer's evidence is mistaken and the other points such as the fact that the photograph shows the bottom right pane to be broken and the lower left unbroken plus Abberline's statement that "they opened the door by reaching through the window" shows this to be the case.

[Bob Hinton]

Broken Glass

I have already covered all of this by quoting Bowyer's confused and confusing evidence, it would appear he didn't know the meaning of 'farthest'. Therefore I submit that Bowyer's evidence is mistaken and the other points such as the fact that the photograph shows the bottom right pane to be broken and the lower left unbroken plus Abberline's statement that "they opened the door by reaching through the window" shows this to be the case.

I'm sorry I don't see what is confusing about Bowyer referring to the plans and stating quite catergorically whilst looking at the plans that the furthest pane in the nearest window was broken. There's no confusion there, presumable the plans showed the broken window and were seen by the Coroner and the jury.

You keep saying that the photograph shows the bottom right pane to be broken, I have never seen that and in any case when was the photograph taken?

[Stewart P Evans]

I'm sorry I don't see what is confusing about Bowyer referring to the plans and stating quite catergorically whilst looking at the plans that the furthest pane in the nearest window was broken. There's no confusion there, presumable the plans showed the broken window and were seen by the Coroner and the jury.
You keep saying that the photograph shows the bottom right pane to be broken, I have never seen that and in any case when was the photograph taken?

From Bowyer's main evidence - "I went round the corner and there was a broken window in the farthest window."

This he changed, referring to Ledger's plan, to, "...I mean the farthest pane of the first window the small one." This is all we have regarding what Bowyer said about the broken window pane and he didn't mention a second broken pane. To me this indicates some confusion on his part and is hardly conclusive.

Dr. Phillips' evidence clearly states that there were two broken panes in the window nearer the passage, but does not specify which ones other than one was 'lower' therefore one of the upper ones was also broken.

There is only one photograph of the windows in 13 Miller's Court and this has been reproduced many times. In my copy of the photograph both the upper and lower right panes can be seen to be broken. There is no apparent damage to the left upper and lower panes. I guess we will not agree on this.

[packers stem]

Think i'm with Bob here.
From the photo i can see no evidence of either of the lower panes being broken so we pretty much have to go with Bowyer on it being the left one.
I would suggest opening the door through the upper pane would be extremely difficult,and dangerous,and would probably involve Kelly standing on the window ledge and trusting a dodgy looking drain pipe.
Surely,surely, surely they would have removed the remaining broken pieces had this been their usual method of entry.

[Chava]

This was why I started the thread. People said that MJK and Barnett opened the door through the window but I wonder if that was a nice piece of embroidery that started around discussions of the missing key at the time of the murder. Did Barnett ever actually say that's what he did? And did he also say that that was what MJK did? I think it's beyond likely that she just left the door closed to and hoped no one would come in and pinch stuff. She clearly didn't reach through the window when she went in with Mr Blotchy. because Cox would have mentioned that.

I guess what I'm leading up to is trying to destroy the theory that the killer came in through the broken pane via hauling up the sash or reaching through and opening the lock. Lizze Prater testified that on the night of the murder she barricaded her upstairs room with a table or two. No one seems to have asked her why she did this. And no one seems to have asked anyone about whether MJK was careful about security or not. I, for one, would love to know why Lizzie was so security-conscious. And I'd also like to know if MJK ever barricaded her room as well. It's possible that she just went to sleep and left the door wide open to all and sundry. But even if she did this when she went out, I can't believe she did it when she was home and in bed.

[Simon Wood]

Abberline at MJK's inquest–"I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time and that they opened the door by reaching through the window . . ."

Regards,

Simon

[harry]

I do not think that reaching through the broken pane would have worried a person if that person had an overcoat and presumably an undercoat as safeguard.Normal dress for that time of year.
I see no reason for Barnett to lie about something that was at hand for anyone to try.

[Bob Hinton]

Broken Glass

We seem to be in danger of getting bogged down here. Stuart Evans states that Bowyers evidence is confused – this clearly is not the case. Bowyer, an elderly man, possibly never being in such a daunting situation before, became a bit tongue tied and used the wrong words. When this was pointed out to him and he was handed an accurate plan of the crime scene he without hesitation indicated which pane of glass was broken, one of the panes on the left hand side. There is no confusion here.

Having attended court on many occasions I can assure you witnesses getting tongue tied is nothing unusual, including witnesses who have attended court many times before such as police officers.

Secondly was it possible to open the door by reaching through the window? This has become distorted during the intervening years, and to get to the truth we are forced to rely on the official record which is the inquest testimony.

As Simon Wood correctly states this is as follows:

“"I am informed by the witness Barnett that the key has been missing for some time and that they opened the door by reaching through the window . . ."

This was what Abberline said about it. Now two very important points.

1. There is no mention how easy or otherwise this was.
2. Abberline does not say he tried it himself, or witnessed it being done, nor has any knowledge whether it was possible; he simply says that Barnett told him what he told him.

Now I deduce from this that Abberline did not have any direct knowledge whether or not this was possible. If he had tried it himself, or if he had witnessed it being done I would expect an officer of his calibre to state that – he didn’t therefore we must accept that he is relying on hearsay.

I think we must stick to the facts here and not wander off into ‘possible’ land.

I do not believe that we can trust the famous photograph to show whether or not which panes of glass were broken. We know one of the left hand ones was broken and yet no-one has claimed they can see that. We must accept that the photograph, first generation or hot off the printer is just not of sufficient quality.