The missing key?

[Amanda Sumner]

Why would either of them look through a lower pane when there was a large hole in the top one?

Sorry, just does not make any sense to me....

[Boris Godunov]

Why would either of them look through a lower pane when there was a large hole in the top one?

Sorry, just does not make any sense to me....

Hello,

It makes more sense that both men did not remember that they looked through the top pane, but specifically pointed out they looked through the bottom, which would require stooping? I'm sorry, I find that extremely unlikely. There was apparently a curtain covering the window interior, yes? Perhaps it was easier to push the curtain aside through the lower pane than reaching up through the taller (which might also result in unwanted lacerations!). Do we know how tall either of these two men were? If they were of average height of the day (5'6"ish), then stooping a bit would be preferable to reaching up through broken glass.

The picture evidence is inconclusive at best. It has been noted that the quality of the photography of the day simply wasn't sufficient to do a full CSI analysis on it. It could be that the lighting, angle and such makes it so the broken lower pane is not visible, but it was still there. Or, has been noted, it's possible the lower pane was removed entirely by the police before the picture was taken. Perhaps they did so to take the MJK1 photo through the window, as has been speculated.

At any rate, I think the testimony of both Philips and Bowyer is more than sufficient to say it is conclusive that a bottom pane was indeed broken. I cannot fathom that they would both be mistaken. It was their jobs to provide accurate information about these sorts of things.

Now, as for the key... I'm not really grasping why it matters so much? I've encountered folks who've woven wild theories that the killer must have nicked the key in order to unlock and then lock the door, that perhaps he was a regular client who had planned the murder a month in advance, etc. But I'm not seeing any real relevance here. The information we have indicates the door locked automatically, so the fact that the door was locked w/o a key isn't a mystery, obviously. The killer's presence inside simply means that Kelly let him in--I think that's the only viable conclusion. That would suggest he was either Barnett or a client. The latter seems to be the case, as police exonerated Barnett pretty quickly.

I'm not sure I see what evidence suggests Barnett was lying about the missing key. I guess it's based on assuming that Barnett didn't tell police prior to their breaking in about his and Kelly's entry method. But that's a big assumption, as we have no evidence Barnett was interviewed before the police entered the room, do we? Abberline was the one who reported that Barnett had said the key was missing.

Someone above mentioned something about the likelihood of the police "sitting around, twiddling their thumbs" for hours when they could have reached in through the window and unlatched the door. But my understanding is that the police waited to enter because they were under standing orders not to do so by Sir Charles Warren. He had obtained two search dogs and had issued a command that no Ripper scene was to be disturbed until the dogs arrived. The police abided by this, unaware that Warren had resigned the day before and wasn't coming with the dogs. When they were finally informed of this, that's when they entered.

With all this, there is a pretty plausible sequence of events:

-MJK's body is discovered through the window by the landlord's boy. The police are fetched. They view the body through the window as well. They wait to enter, based on Warren's standing orders.
-After hours, word comes in about Warren's resignation. Realizing there won't be any dogs coming, the police try to open the door. It's locked. The police force the door open because that's the quickest and most immediate reaction they would have. It likely wouldn't have taken much effort to do so, either.
-While the police are reviewing the scene, Barnett has been located and arrives. They don't let him enter the room itself, as it's a small and active crime scene. They get him to make a cursory ID of MJK through the window.
-Later on, Barnett is asked to give a more formal ID of the body (perhaps after it has been taken away to mortuary?). He is interviewed, and at that point he relates how the key had been missing.

This seems a plausible scenario to me, and it renders the missing key irrelevant to the murder. Assuming the key wasn't missing and Barnett was lying is just needlessly complicating the matter, in my view. There seem to be tons of mountains-made-out-of-molehills in the Ripper murders, and this is just another one of them.

The key was missing, the residents of no. 13 unlocked the door through the lower broken pane that definitely existed per the testimony of 2 expert witnesses. The killer was let into MJK's room by Kelly herself, most likely because he was presenting himself as a client. The killer left the room when he was finished with his atrocity and the door locked automatically behind him. I'm not seeing any real evidence that contradicts this.

Cheers!

[Batman]

The murderer simply watched how Mary used the window trick to enter with him and then repeated the process on closing. So the key is no clue to anything.

[Natasha]

Could Maria Harvey have taken the key?

Barnett said he left Kelly because: she had a woman of bad character there, whom she took in out of compassion, and I objected to it
What did Barnett mean by this? Was he referring to Harvey being a prostitute or was there a more sinister reason?

[Rosella]

Barnett certainly didn't seem to like Maria very much. There could have been lots of reasons. He could have suspected her of being light-fingered or talking about him to Mary behind his back, being a liar, disgusting when drunk, persuading Mary to get money by going with men, tons of things.

I don't think the key was given to anyone. I believe they weren't particularly organised sort of people and either Barnett or Mary simply mislaid it.

[RockySullivan]

But still why didn't the landlord have a key? Was in the habit of giving the only copy to his tenants?

[GUT]

But still why didn't the landlord have a key? Was in the habit of giving the only copy to his tenants?

That's not at all out of the question, remember that at the time no seems to have thought it noteworthy that John didn't have a key, according to any reports that still exist anyway.