The Broken Window

[Rubyretro]

I totally agree, Harry, on every point, and I think that Belinda's scenario is very likely.

[Bob Hinton]

Broken Glass

Harry
Let me explain it once again. I maintain that MJK didn’t bother to lock the door when she went out, NOT when she was inside alone.

What I believe happened is this. MJK returns to room with Blotchy face. Door is on the latch they enter for drinks and nibbles. She doesn’t bother to lock the door on this occasion.

Later she goes out again to seek business. She leaves the door on the latch again. She returns with man, by this time she is drunk, after finishing she is laying drunk or asleep on her bed.

Man leaves, not knowing how to drop the snib or simply not bothering, he exits again leaving the door on the latch.

Killer, who has been watching room, sees man leave and enters through door which is on the latch.

[Sally]

Hi All

This is going back a few pages, so I apologise if the discussion has moved on since -


According to the Daily Telegraph, this is what Inspector Abberline said with reference to the missing key and broken window in his testimony at the inquest of Mary Kelly:

‘An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy’ - Daily Telegraph, November 13th 1888 (my emphasis)

This statement seems to me to be quite clear in itself. If correct, it dispels one or two apparent ambiguities. It seems clear, for example, that Barnett and Kelly had been reaching through the broken window in order to open the door - and not lifting the sash. As this would be an easier, less hazardous option, it’s probably safe to assume it wasn’t one available to them.

I think Abberline’s statement indicates that the key had only been lost since, or after, the 30th October, but that it also indicates that Barnett - as well as Kellly - had been using this method to gain entrance to No. 13 since his departure on the 30th October.

I think Abberline’s statement that ‘It is quite easy’ to gain entry to the room in this way can be read to indicate that Abberline had tried it himself. This is a possibility in my view. On the other hand, I think the context of that part of his statement is sufficiently ambiguous for doubt - alternatively, perhaps he was reporting that Barnett had told him it was easy. I think that one’s open to debate.

I don’t think it likely that Abberline would just have taken Barnett’s word for it though, and even if he hadn’t personally tried it (and if he had, that begs a few questions more..) then I would expect that he had at least verified to his own satisfaction that the idea was plausible - even if all he did was have a good look.

Others may disagree, but personally, I can’t imagine how opening the door through a broken window can have possibly been ‘quite easy’ unless the method was employed through the bottom right pane of the broken window.

From the photographs posted here, it does look to me as though the bottom right hand pane is broken, but I know photographs can be misleading to the eye.

[Fisherman]

...aaand 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

[Chava]

Hi Sally and welcome to the boards!

The issue of the broken window has never been clearly explained, and as you know, we're not all in agreement as to which panes were broken. But if anyone managed to gain ingress to the room via the window I think it would have had to have been via the pane on the lower right as we look from the outside of the room. There is a discernible shadow there, and I assume that's a break.

[The Good Michael]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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

[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]

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 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?