Was She Wrong?

[The Rookie Detective]

Surely the killer got in without a key because he was one of Kelly's clients.

But Kelly would still need the key regardless.

Blotchy was seen going in through the door with Kelly.

She never used the broken window

Why?

I believe the missing key anomaly is the clue.

[The Rookie Detective]

Either Kelly entered the room with her killer through the door, let him into the room with her already inside, the killer used the latch via the broken window while she was sleeping, or he had a key.

The latter option seems unlikely.

Using the latch through the broken window would have required the killer to have observed Kelly doing the same thing previously.

The issue is that when Kelly is witnessed entering her room with Blotchy, she uses the door and not the latch.

So Kelly must have had a key.

So where did that key go?

And was it the same key that magically reappeared?

[Doctored Whatsit]

It doesn't matter how the killer got out, it's how he managed to get in without a key.

Surely the killer got in without a key because he was one of Kelly's clients.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Herlock

The door locked automatically, the lock was described as “spring lock”.
so no key was necessary to lock it.

Whether the door could be locked or unlocked is besides the point, it's about how access could be gained to get inside the room.

The fact there was meant to be a key, but it was apparently missing, means that a key was needed to access the room.
The action of a pickaxe being used on the door means that the key wasn't there, not that a key wasn't needed.

The door must have been locked for a pickaxe to be used in the first place.

So a key would be needed in normal circumstances.

Unless of course there was no key to the room in the first place, meaning that anyone could enter the room at any point?

It doesn't matter how the killer got out, it's how he managed to get in without a key.

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup,

Just like magic, I mention the Carrie Brown case and you appear.

The sad thing is though - haven’t you previously mentioned to me that it was a ‘spring lock’ ? And not that long ago?

No, I don’t think so, and the advanced search option verifies it. Must have been someone else

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

The door locked automatically, the lock was described as “spring lock”.
so no key was necessary to lock it.

Hi Kattrup,

Just like magic, I mention the Carrie Brown case and you appear.

The sad thing is though - haven’t you previously mentioned to me that it was a ‘spring lock’ ? And not that long ago?

[Kattrup]

On the subject of the locked door - was a key actually required to lock the door to Kelly’s room? We had a similar discussion over on How Brown’s Carrie Brown: Murder In The East River Hotel site where the subject of a locked door was of importance due to the alleged key to the murder room surfacing 10 years later. Could it have been the kind of lock where you can flick some kind of catch and the door automatically locked after the door was shut? Maybe a key wasn’t required to lock the door, only to unlock it?

Hi Herlock

The door locked automatically, the lock was described as “spring lock”.
so no key was necessary to lock it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the subject of the locked door - was a key actually required to lock the door to Kelly’s room? We had a similar discussion over on How Brown’s Carrie Brown: Murder In The East River Hotel site where the subject of a locked door was of importance due to the alleged key to the murder room surfacing 10 years later. Could it have been the kind of lock where you can flick some kind of catch and the door automatically locked after the door was shut? Maybe a key wasn’t required to lock the door, only to unlock it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Herlock,

Whatever the case it would appear that his answers satisfied the police.

c.d.

Hello c.d.

Yes, I think it’s reasonable to assume that.

[c.d.]

There's no way that Mccarthy wouldn't have had a master key of some kind.

If that is true, would that have been lost on the police? So it would seem that not having a key is much more suspicious than having one, correct?

It seems poor McCarthy just can't with respect to the key business. Damned if he has one. Damned if he doesn't.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

He is giving himself a practical alibi because the first thing the police would want to know would have been to know exactly who had access to the room, and therefore be suspicious of anyone who would have been able to access the murder scene.

If Mccarthy says he has a spare key, the police would automatically treat him as a person of interest

But isn't the consensus here that it would have been normal for him to have a spare key? And wouldn't that have been easy for the police to check? All they had to do was ask Bowyer or any of the residents. It would be getting caught in a lie that would make him suspicious not simply having a key.

c.d.

But the case of the missing key relates to Mccarthy's key and not Barnett and Kelly's key.

This is because the missing key later turns up again.

There's no way that Mccarthy wouldn't have had a master key of some kind.

[c.d.]

He is giving himself a practical alibi because the first thing the police would want to know would have been to know exactly who had access to the room, and therefore be suspicious of anyone who would have been able to access the murder scene.

If Mccarthy says he has a spare key, the police would automatically treat him as a person of interest

But isn't the consensus here that it would have been normal for him to have a spare key? And wouldn't that have been easy for the police to check? All they had to do was ask Bowyer or any of the residents. It would be getting caught in a lie that would make him suspicious not simply having a key.

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

I'm lost here, R.D. What if legitimately did not have a key in his possession at the time. How in the world is that "convenient?"

c.d.

A landlord who doesn't have a spare key/skeleton key to each of his rooms, could be deemed as convenient from the perspective that it is a way of telling the police that Mccarthy had no way of accessing the room himself.

When Mccarthy uses a pickaxe on the door, it's his way of giving himself some leverage against the possibility of him having been the killer.

He is giving himself a practical alibi because the first thing the police would want to know would have been to know exactly who had access to the room, and therefore be suspicious of anyone who would have been able to access the murder scene.

If Mccarthy says he has a spare key, the police would automatically treat him as a person of interest.


Therefore, by telling the police he needs a pickaxe to break down the door, he is conveniently ruling himself out as a suspect.

[c.d.]

I'm lost here, R.D. What if legitimately did not have a key in his possession at the time. How in the world is that "convenient?"

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

Unless the police were complete idiots (and I don't think they were) wouldn't one of the first things they attempted to determine be how the killer got into the room? Wouldn't that entail questioning McCarthy as to the key situation? How many were there? Who had them? Was there a spare key? Where was that kept? Could someone have gotten access to it without McCarthy's knowledge?

Wouldn't the question of why the door was broken when McCarthy had a key have been addressed in all this?

c.d.

A very good post indeed.

It seems to me that for McCarthy to have waited for the Superintendent to arrive before taking a pickaxe to the door, implies that upon Arnold's arrival, when he instructed for the door to be opened, Mccarthy at that point must have told Arnold that the key was missing and he wasn't able to enter the room through conventional means.This may have also given Mccarthy an excuse for given the impression he couldn't have entered the room prior to Arnold's arrival.

There was no reason for Mccarthy to have taken a pickaxe to the door.

The only explanation is that he told the police he didn't have a key.

Convenient.