The missing key?

[richardh]

Contemporary image showing the pane closest to the door to be broken.



and

[/URL]

[richardh]

Richard.
I believe the pane furthest away from the corner was the one broken, you have the arm through the nearest pane.

Well, In all the contemporary illustrations, and all the discussions I've read on these forums and in all the time I've been producing the 3D renders, that's the first time someone has picked up that I've broken the wrong window.
The thread that image is from is long and many people have commented with suggestions etc. But no-one has said that the window with the arm going through it is the wrong one. Are you certain about this?

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

I have an Idear why the photo may not show a lower damaged pane, would it not make sense that if you made regular use of it to open the door they may have remover the last remaining parts of the glass so as not to get scagged by it?
Ho and thanks for your reply wickerman as for up keep of the place I would think next to nothing looking as the place!

Also Im not sure if Barnett did lie about the key he could as easly said MJ had the only one, and the police may have assumed that the killed found and made use of it after his work was done.

[Wickerman]

Didn't Barnett identify MJK through the window? Why was this the case if the door had been smashed down at this point?

Perhaps we are assuming too much, it does happen

Barnett no doubt first saw the body through the broken window, Mrs Prater says the same. The police were not letting witnesses enter the room, in Barnett's case this could well be because the post-mortem was in progress when he arrived, between 2:00-4:00 pm?

As for Barnett making an official identification, this would not be done from a distance across a dark room and through a broken window.
The identification will be done up close, likely when she was placed in the shell, but at least after the conclusion of the post-mortem.
If you recall, Barnett said the police kept him for four hours (alt. 2 1/2 hrs). Possibly due, in part, to them asking him to wait until the doctors had concluded their work?

What we have are two separate sources.
One tells us Barnett looked at the body through the window, the second tells us he identified the body for police.
We should not assume these separate sources are referring to the same event.

[Wickerman]

Thank you, Wickerman,

It does appear to indicate from the statements above that two panes were broken. Odd that it does not show up in the photo.

If, indeed, there was a bottom pane broken then Barnett was probably not lying about the key.

You're quite welcome Amanda.
As regards the key, it was not Barnett who mentioned this at the inquest. The issue was raised by Insp. Abberline. It was he who told the Court that Barnett accessed the lock through the broken window.
Which should suggest that Barnett had told the police this while he was being interviewed in Millers Court, though it does not form part of his police statement.

That could suggest then that JtR either let himself in with it, used the window method or MJK let him in. Whichever way, the door locked on the latch as he left in the early hours.

Quite so, yes.

And as for the photograph, we have to make allowances, this was a old glass-plate photo and the existing print is not in the best condition.

[Harry D]

Didn't Barnett identify MJK through the window? Why was this the case if the door had been smashed down at this point?

[Amanda Sumner]

Thank you, Wickerman,

It does appear to indicate from the statements above that two panes were broken. Odd that it does not show up in the photo.

If, indeed, there was a bottom pane broken then Barnett was probably not lying about the key.

That could suggest then that JtR either let himself in with it, used the window method or MJK let him in. Whichever way, the door locked on the latch as he left in the early hours.

It's ironic really that we have very little visual evidence in this case because they did not take photos of crime scenes, as we do now, and yet there is disagreement on this photo we have. One would have thought there would be no dispute over it because we can see it. Certainly only one pane is visibly broken in that photo. It is the top right one nearest the drainpipe. Looking at the photo, the small window is very low down. Looking at the door and the height of the window, one could argue that it would have been easier to look through that than stooping down and looking through the bottom pane.

What do I know?

Anyway, thank you for your time and I will have a fiddle with photobucket,

Cheers

Amanda

[Wickerman]

Amanda.

Dr. Phillips described how he first saw the body.

2 of the pains in the window nearest the passage were broken and finding the door locked I looked through the lower broken pane

So from this we know two panes were broken.
We also know that of the lower two panes, one was broken.
Therefore, we can determine that the other broken pane was one of the top two.

Then, in the testimony of Charles Ledger, we read:
"Bowyer pointed out the window, which was the one nearest the entrance."
We are therefore talking about the smaller four-pane window.

Then Bowyer said:
"I mean the farthest pane of the first window the small one."

So, as we look at the photograph it appears that the bottom left pane of the four-pane window was the one he looked through.
We have no way of determining which one of the upper two panes was also broken.

As for posting the pictures, it may depend on which browser you are using. I post pictures with Photobucket because the other way (using the Casebook feature) appears to cause problems for some posters, so I stick with what works for me, even though it involves a little more work.

[Amanda Sumner]

I'm not clear, lying about what, - the window being broken?

Bowyer identifies the pane when he pointed to the plan, in court:
"I refer to plan and I mean the farthest pane of the first window the small one."

I agree, it is difficult to see in the pic if either of the lower panes were broken, but we are not contesting Bowyer. One of them was broken.




Barnett's first opportunity to mention it was when he was interviewed.

If the account in the press is correct, he was interviewed at Millers Court.
That being the case, wouldn't you think it likely that Abberline said "show me how".
Any Detective worth his salt would, after all, Barnett at this point is a suspect.

Yes, well here Bowyer speaks of one pane broken. he does not say top or bottom.
As far as Barnett lying, I meant about the whole window scenario, opening the door that way, and that the key was missing, which I don't believe it was.
As far as I'm aware Barnett was at the scene at some point so he had plenty of opportunity to tell them about the window, if it was true.
I agree that the police should have looked into it more. They seemed satisfied with his statement however and let him go. i think we will have to agree to disagree with the number of panes broken. If it was only the top one then on balance, Barnett was lying. I, personally, only see one top pane broken and have yet to be convinced otherwise. Sorry.
BTW. You did not mention how to upload a picture on here. Please can you tell me how, I will be very grateful. Nothing happens when I click on 'attachments'

Amanda

[Wickerman]

It seems odd that he did not show them how they got in without the key when they were pondering about how to gain entrance.

Amanda.
We do not know what time Barnett arrived at Millers Court, it must have been after 1:30 when the door had already been forced.

[Wickerman]

The only reason that it is important is to establish whether Barnett was lying or not.

I'm not clear, lying about what, - the window being broken?

Bowyer identifies the pane when he pointed to the plan, in court:
"I refer to plan and I mean the farthest pane of the first window the small one."

I agree, it is difficult to see in the pic if either of the lower panes were broken, but we are not contesting Bowyer. One of them was broken.

If there was a broken pane as shown in the image above, then why did the police not use this way to get in? Why did not Barnett mention it until he was interviewed?

Barnett's first opportunity to mention it was when he was interviewed.

If the account in the press is correct, he was interviewed at Millers Court.
That being the case, wouldn't you think it likely that Abberline said "show me how".
Any Detective worth his salt would, after all, Barnett at this point is a suspect, everything he says is being checked.

[Amanda Sumner]

Sorry Wickerman, I went straight down to bottom of page and missed your photos. I can just see a broken pane on the top as I stated, but I can't see a broken pane at the bottom. How did you put these on? I can't get my image to load. I agree with you, that it is hard to see properly.

[Natasha]

G'day Natasha

Considering the room is either 12x12 or 12x10 [depending on the source] I think the answer has to be a resounding NO.

I don't think that "everyone" has argued that as the reason for taking the picture from outside, indeed in a room 12X10 it would be have been entirely possible to take a photo inside as anyone who knows anything about photography will attest.

And yes there has been a lot of discussion about the placement, and sizes, of the two windows and it is not something you would expect to see in a modern building, personally I think that the answer s likely to have been renovations to the building at some stage, but that is nothing more than my opinion.

Hi Gut

Sorry about saying everyone, I meant everyone has argued in regards of how the picture was taken weather inside or outside the house.

Just thinking outside the box

[Amanda Sumner]

Amanda.
I think you are missing the point.

It isn't what we can or cannot see in a photo that is older than the both of us put together, we are lucky it survived at all.

Two witnesses identified the broken pane, Bowyer & Dr. Phillips.

Two panes were broken, they were both in the smaller window, the window nearest the downspout on the corner.

Bowyer identified the lower pane furthest from the corner as the one he looked through. The other broken pane was one of the upper two, which one we do not know.

Hi Wickerman,
The one photo that we always see of Miller's court, we have all been led to believe, I thought, that it was taken on the day of the murder. In the photo I can only see one pane of glass broken. I put a link on here of another thread that shows this. However, I managed to enhance it more and there does seem to be one pane broken in the top right corner , looking at it from the outside. I agree, that it is possible that another panel was broken at the bottom, but there is no visual evidence of this. For some reason I can't upload my photo onto here to show you. The only reason that it is important is to establish whether Barnett was lying or not. If there was a broken pane as shown in the image above, then why did the police not use this way to get in? Why did not Barnett mention it until he was interviewed?

Amanda

[Wickerman]

Also just so I get this right the lower pain was damaged due to a fight? the reason I ask is I have lived in houses with these windows and as long as you can get to the sash lock which you could do by the upper pain then the lower half should slid up.

How well maintained do you think these Millers Court properties were?


[note....in the above pics I focused on the top right pane because the definition between light and dark was the best, but Bowyer did say it was the bottom left pane that he looked through, and we know one of the upper panes was broken.
I'm suggesting it was the top right pane - that is all.]