The Broken Window

[Bob Hinton]

Oh really...

The first thing to understand is that Barnett claimed that the door was opened by reaching through the window.You either have to believe that is what was done,or call Barnett a liar..

As usual you are jumping to all sorts of conclusions not backed up by facts. The first thing to understand, to use your phrase, is that we have no record of Barnett saying anything of the sort. What we have is Abberline saying that was what Barnett said, which is an entirely different thing altogether. That is heresay and is not allowed in court as it can give rise to errors.

Now I'm not saying Abberline is a liar, so please stay in your pram, what I am saying is that it is not as clear cut as you try to make it appear. So I don't have only the option of believeing Barnett or calling him a liar as he is not on record as saying anything about the window access.

I personally believe that Barnett did say he gained access by reaching through the window, and I know that is possible by the results of my own experiment. However it is not easy and requires a bit of ledge balancing.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Bob.
As far as I am aware, Kellys door had just a knob outside and a key hole, no letter box, so if the string ever existed ,it had to have been either attached to the bolt of the door, and placed [over a nail mayby?] near the broken window.or as my previous post suggested, on the exterior of the door.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Bob,
I was not in fantasy mode, simply using the quotation as Farson described, it surely is possible that when Mary was in her room , she left a piece of string around the outer door knob, so that any of her friends seeing this would know[ by prior arrangement] that they had no need to knock...come straight in.
No string ... she was not at home.
It is not uncommon for people to leave signs in windows etc, to know if its safe to call... not as if I would know anything about that ..
Regards Richard.

[Bob Hinton]

Broken Glass

Hello Bob.
As far as I am aware, Kellys door had just a knob outside and a key hole, no letter box, so if the string ever existed ,it had to have been either attached to the bolt of the door, and placed [over a nail mayby?] near the broken window.or as my previous post suggested, on the exterior of the door.
Regards Richard.

You're missing the point Richard, I'm not suggesting MJK had a letterbox I'm suggesting that this story emanated from the old habit some people had of leaving a key on a bit of string behind the letterbox.

As for leaving signs on doors so her friends would know just to walk in I'm sorry but that is a trip to fantasy land.

[Chava]

I"m sorry Mr Hinton. Clearly I missed your post only two above mine. Many apologies.

As for MJK leaving a string outside the door so there was no need to knock. I can't believe this at all. We've got Prater upstairs barricading herself in while downstairs, the more vulnerable MJK lets anyone in who wants to come. I don't think that's likely at all. Even without a serial killer roaming the area, even given that she made her living as a prostitute, I doubt MJK was as cavalier about her guests as that.

However I am now not going to start my list of suspects with the the unknown and opportunistic creeper. If for no other reason than it was clearly possible to (a) draw the curtain aside and see MJK asleep in bed--as Bowyer confirms because that is how he discovered the body. And (b) quietly reach in and open the lock. Because one thing strikes me that I've never thought of before which I'm not going to go into here. I think I'll go and start a thread in 'general victims'.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Bob.
I like to search every avenue as you proberly have guessed, and I was attempting to find an alternative explanation to Farsons quote.
It is entirely possible that some string device was used via the window, but how would that have worked?
If this means of entrance was to save the visitor knocking, it would make no sense, as once that person had gone round to the window, and pulled back the pilot coat [ at night] then they could see if the room was ocupied, and in daylight they simply could have looked through the window, as that garment would not have been drawn across during the day[ one would pursume]
both scenerios would have resulted, in the door being opened for them, locked or not, if Kelly was at home.
Another explanation, is that string was tied round the outer doorknob, for the benefit of her regular female visitors who often frequented her room, and it was a way of informing them when they reached the door if Barnett was around, [who we know objected fiercely to her lady friends] so they need not knock, or go round to the window if no string was there, and he would be none the wiser.
Far fetched mayby , but ?
Regards Richard.

[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.

[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,
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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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" MīCarthy 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 - donīt 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.

[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.

[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.