|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1513
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 3:16 am: | 
|
Rob,
Absolutely superb rendering of Millers Court!
I think Jane"s" Millers Court night time" and this of yours above are such a fresh new addition to picturing the place as it looked.Clearly you have allowed more of the dereliction to show which is even more "real"- though a bit less pretty ,so that the two complement each other and give us much more understanding of what the place was like.However it seems to me quite important that Jane aids the aesthetics a bit so that when we visit them in our imagination
the experience isnt too ghastly!
Nats |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 177
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
Sorry, I'll have to break this into several posts again because I get confused otherwise, besides, how else am I going to catch Hutch up in postings!
Hi Robert,
That Miller's Court is terrific and my hubby will totally approve because he always accused me of making it look too much like a chocolate box. Yours looks so true to how it would have looked. I suppose I'm a compulsive tidier and cleaner and couldn't bear to have it looking too grubby! I really love the upstairs window. It looks so real, and the mould actually looks like mould. Well done.
I was looking at the picture of Dorset Street, you coloured up. No wonder you said that you had trouble with it, what a stinker. I tried at it and gave up in the end because I was just getting annoyed with it, so good on you for sticking with it and turning out a good picture.
Keep them coming.
Love Jane
xxxxx
Oh by the way thanks for the photos, you can see I made good use of them! |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 178
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 7:51 am: |
|
Hi Hutch,
I knew you would get cream crackered doing all those posts. Good, give me a chance to catch up you swine! I hope you're feeling better though, it's not the same without you!
My husband, (Les) is a very fine Illustrator, much better than me actually and he has offered to do some line drawings to go along with the pics I've done to show the exact position of the victims in situ, covering all eventualities, i.e before they were found and after etc., possibly aslo some other stuff, which I'll post up as it will hopefully be useful.
I can probably show a bit of the bonnet, and am thinking of some other ideas to clarify how the victims fell etc.,
Catch you later,
Love
Jane
xxxxx |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 179
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 8:18 am: |
|
Hi Paul,
I am going to do Kate at the entrance of the passage with the man next, (great minds think alike) but making a complete idiot of myself here - Is the view below the right end of the passage or was it the other end.
Please don't titter... I am really daft sometimes. If anyone can help with other angles or what is either side of the passage -or anything - please post them. I want to get it right.
I'm going to have to go to a costume site anyway to get reference for 1888 men's clothes as I am very vague on hats especially.
I'll see if I can do some research on the passage myself in the meantime, but I know from past experience that it probably won't help much.
love Jane
xxxxxx
 |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 180
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 8:30 am: |
|
Hi Natalie,
I think I've covered most of it in the other posts.
But you are right, it is important to get the angles of the victims right etc.,
The main reason I started doing these reconstructions was that I couldn't picture it and I think there must be lots out there that are the same. It's so frustrating trying to get an image of what happened and hitting a blank wall literally.
In the case of Polly, I can see know what happened I think. Apparently the large post of the right side of the gate gave a 19 - 20 inch cover on that side, which would have been enough to provide a 'shelter' for their activities if they kept close in to the shadows. If poor Polly was facing the post and JtR was behind her, she would have fallen, or rather been lowered backwards into exactly the position she is in and the bonnet would have fallen just by her left hand. Well that's how I interpret it anyway. What do you (or anyone else) think? I could never work it out before.
Thanks for the post anyway Nats,
Catch you later
love
Jane
xxxxx
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 248
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 8:33 am: |
|
Jane - this shot is taken from the top of Church Passge looking down TOWARDS Mitre Square (ie taken from where CE & Mr peaked-cap were seen) - Ripper's Corner is where the points converge in the middle.
I am not too happy with this as a shot myself; it looks too modern (1967 again). Robert - can you shed any light?
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1517
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 9:34 am: |
|
Jane,
You are absolutely right-these reconstructions and enhanced photos of the period have definitely developed a sense-well my sense anyway of the immediate area around the crime scene at the time for both night and day.Each time I myself have done a painting I have had to research it with old photos/newphotos/a sketch and a look for myself at the distances from various land marks such as the London Hospital in relation to Bucks Row-about 3 minutes walk via Woods Buildings which I painted and Robert Flack photographed in the 1980"s-still on the thread,june 2004.I noticed too at that time where the slaughter house was in relation to the murders again2-3 mins walk[and I remembered Chris Scott"s Research a while back on a passage a few doors down Hanbury Street from no 29 that led to the cowfield at the rear of the houses and the Hanbury St yard that YOU reconstructed. I noted Chris comments at the time that the cowfield immediately at the rear was owned by [apparently] "the Barbers who owned the slaughter house in Winthrop Street which ofcourse makes the name "Barber"[hope I spell it write]pop up twice within a weeks time span -31st aug-8 sept 1888-in connection with the murders of Polly and Annie.An amazing jigsaw this!
Anyway all your current work is immensely valuable to me and all those who are helped by these props to work out what must have happened.Some people have such "mini maps" in their heads but I need it spelt out for me!!!I hope you like my painting which is finished and which I hope to definitely post this weekend[3 of them probably].
I agree completely over the figures as suggested by you above.
Best
Natsxxx |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 181
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
Thanks for that. I don't think that until you actually try and do a reconstruction or a painting that you realise what a nightmare it is getting things in their right place in the scheme of things. Some people are lucky and can get their bearings, but some of us get dizzy going in circles!
I'm looking forward to doing the others now as hopefully it will give me a better idea of things.
It's funny but I even remember telephone and serial numbers as pictures in my head, but I can remember practically anything that way.
Interesting about the cowfield. Hmmm, the slaughterhouse thing is curious. it's going to be something daft like that that actually solves the case in the end I think!
I'm going to have a look at Wood's buildings, for a reconstruction because it could be good done as a night shot.
Can't wait to see your paintings.
catch you later,
love Jane
xxxx
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 182
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Hi Hutch, glad you're still alive, I was getting worried and about to send in a rescue party.
Thanks for that. I think i've got it and I can do something with it, just recreating the picture from bits and pieces. I will not use that photo as such as I don't think that's fair, but I can do something a bit creative I hope and get the message across.
Catch you later.
Love jane
xxxxxxx |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 256
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Rob C,
Thanks so much for Dorset St and Miller's Ct! Two more pics for my wall!
This is awesome!
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 457
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Hi Jane
I try not to change to much in the photos if I can help it. The only major difference to the two Dorset Street ones, are the skies, which are recently photographed. (Skies are to me the same as the eyes are to a portrait).
I agree with Philip about the 1967 Church Passage photo, it looks a bit to modern, which I think is due to the left hand side of the passage. The right hand side looks fine. I don't think Church Passage was covered in 1888, at least it isn't on any maps. This photo was taken from the Mitre Square end looking towards Duke Street. The buildings (on the right in this case) look the same but are different. Plus there is a wall lamp which isn't in the 1967 photo. It was published in Robin Odell's 'Jack the Ripper in Fact and Fiction'. I hope it is okay to post it, otherwise I will do some serious groveling, when I meet him next month.
Rob |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1522
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Love this Photo Rob!Was it taken in 1967? Is the building on the left original? When were the houses put up-1910 or so?
Don" know how Jane feels but it has inspired me quite!
Nats |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 458
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
It was taken around 1965. I believe they are the same ones that were there in 1888. I do think it gives a better idea of the length of Church Passage. The 1967 looks a lot longer than it actually is.
All the best
Rob |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 183
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Rob, you're a hero!
I have been struggling all day with a pic of Kate and JtR at the entrance to the passage. The figures look fine at least provisionally, but I knew that pic of the passage was too modern for it to be right. The only problem is that I need a wider shot of the other side to finish it. All I have is the shot from just inside the passage, excluding any idea of what the buildings were like on either side. Even with your information from the photo above I can't widen out the shot and it is not working. It's a pity because the figures themselves look pretty okay and I am getting very frustrated!!!!!!!
PLEASE CAN SOMEONE HELP - I'M DESPERATE!
If there is no definite record, can anyone just give me an idea of what sort of buildings they might have been and I can use a bit of artistic license.
Sorry to be a pain, but I am totally stumped. I have got plenty of reference though for men's clothing of the period from some good sites and should be able to do some reasonably accurate renderings of the men the witnesses saw.
If the worst happens I'll wing it.
Off to bed now, I've had enough for one day, but I never give in!!!!
love
Jane
xxxxx |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 257
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 6:54 pm: |
|
Hi Jane.
Sadly, for once I can't help. The only picture of any kind I've ever seen of Church Passage from the outside is Stewart Evans' 1967 shot. The plans I have of Mitre Square in 1888 show that the lamp was, at that time, attached to the building (or its predecessor) on the LEFT - not where it is on this 1965 shot. You do know, of course, this is a shot FROM INSIDE Mitre Square? I think you do from your comments.
Rob - this picture is a gem! I had always wondered why there was a second batch of paving even today up the current wide St James' Passage which chamferred off on the left - and now I see why! It was a house entrance! I had always thought that maybe the cobbles had come up to that point. It's a gem of a picture. I'm sure that doorway isn't on the right any more - I've not noticed it before anyway. 'My' bench now stands just a few feet off the shot on the right!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 185
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 4:38 am: |
|
Hi Hutch and Rob,
You're right, that is an amazing photo. Great camera work. I'm sure everyone is grateful for you posting it Rob, even if you do have to grovel a lot for doing it! (We'll stick up for you!)
I've slept on it and I think I can do something now that I have the new photo and your information Hutch, at least until anyone comes up with any other alternaives!
The lamp is totally invaluable, because it will give some light to the scene, on the right, looking along the passage into Mitre Square, ie. the opposite side to the new shot that Rob posted - yes?
I think that from the witnesses point of view, they would be possibly seeing the back of a generic warehouse building on the right side. I only have to put in a couple of feet of brickwork for the close in shot, so I'll just stick in some stock rather knocked up wall. Probably the same on the other side with some variation. If anyone comes back with any new info, it won't be hard to alter.
I will have it up by the end of today. It's opened up a whole new area for pics, which is good, because I was getting bored with walls and windows!
lots of love
Jane
ps It's snowing here in East Sussex - doesn't happen that often. Quarter of an inch of snow and everything comes to a standstill! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2996
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Hi all,
Great photo, Rob!
I have never seen Church Passage like this. Ha! that corner entrance to the left building seems almost idyllic...
My old mate Hutch is absolutely right.
According to plans over Mitre Square, the wall lamp sat on the left corner -- probably connected to the entrance (note that this is the entrance from Mitre Square).
Regarding your other question, Jane, I ahven't yet figured out which entrance you are intend doing, if it's from Duke Street I am afraid I have no idea either. I have never seen photos or sketches from Duke Street, unfortunately.
I guess you just have to use your artistic imagination and freedom in that case.
Really looking forward to that scene, jane.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1523
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 8:18 am: |
|
Jane, PHILIP,
Jane,
This of any help?
../4921/13513.html"../4921/7814.html" target=_top>../4921/7814.html"../4921/10743.html" target=_top>../4921/10743.html"../../clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0>
"I thought we'd agreed, I thought we'd talked it out, Now when I try to speak, She says that I don't care, She says I'm unaware, And now she says I'm weak ."- Joe Barnett
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 187
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
Hi Monty, Thanks for the info.(I seem to spend all of my time thanking people, which can't be bad. It shows what a great bunch you are!)
The map helps a lot and the bit about Kate in situ was really helpful as that is the one I'm doing next.
I just finished Kate talking to JtR? at Church passage. I'm just waiting for my husband to check it and make sure I haven't given them three legs or anything, then I'll post it. Actually it hasn't turned out too badly for an experiment, so I am a bit chuffed.
Thanks once again
All the best
Jane |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 188
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Hi Everyone,
Okay, I am really worried about these two because they are a bit different to my previous pics. Be gentle with me!
I tried to stick to the descriptions given by the witnesses, but you can imagine that actually depicting JtR is a nightmare. How on earth could I guess at his expression, demeanour etc., I just went for the general premise that many serial killer's look fairly benign and would never be suspected of being what there i.e Bundy and Sutcliffe. I didn't want him rabid and foaming at the mouth!
I'm sure you'll let me know what you think!
Here's the first
Catharine and JtR? at Church passage.
 |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 260
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Jane - just as I would have imagined it! Seriously - you've really done your homework here. Rightfully proud you should be too.
I am trying to e-mail you; your message box is full so clear some of it out!!!
PHILIP
x
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 189
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Here's the second one,
This is Annie in situ I kept the figure generic as I only wanted to show the position to help visualise the crime scene.
I'm still not sure of the origin of the photograph, so if someone holds the copyright on it, I do apologise and I will sort out some other background source. I think that it is more than fifty years old and no longer has copyright on it. If I'm wrong please let me know!
I was surprised that the figure was smaller than I had always imagined it to be in relation to the door and the fence. If anything she may be a fraction on the large size, but I hope it doesn't look too much out of proportion.
I think that the position is right from the descriptions.
I'm going Catharine in Mitre Square next.
Love
Jane
xxxxxx
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2999
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Hi Jane!
So that is why my e-mail to you bounced back! Your inbox was full??? I have tried to mail you, woman.
Jane, great stuff. You shouldn't worry at all. It can't have been easy doing such a picture right from scratch.
If I were you I should tone down and lighten up the rough black lines and shadows on Eddowes and the man's clothing (it is a bit too sharp and sketchy), but otherwise I think your attempt here is marvellous and I particularly like the man's face. There you see... the natural softness without the black lines.. what reality that creates. It seems like his face was from a photograph! Very alive.
I also like the posture on them both. You have gotten her "hand upon chest" pose very right, I feel.
I can tell you have studied the witness description, because that is very much how I have pictured him!!!!!!!! You've done great with that. I also like the environment and the passage! Don't you change any of that!
And look at the plates on the street, especially the foreground! Incredible. What realism.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 26, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 261
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Hi Jane - whilst the figure of AC is SMASHING, she is indeed in the wrong place and consequently a bit too big. There was a small gap between the steps and the fence. She was between those. This was why some thought at the time when Richardson was cutting leather from his shoe and sitting on the top step he could possibly have not seen her behind the door (though that is very unlikely!). Hopefully, with the image overlain, it won't be too difficult to reduce the size and move her. Sadly, you are going to lose a lot of her behind the step!
PHILIP
x
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3002
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
That's true indeed, Hutchie.
Her head should be moved further into the corner.
Otherwise lovely.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1985
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Jane! theyre great! am going to call ya later cos there are a few things we need to giggle about !
Suzi xxxx
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 192
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Hi guys,
Thanks. I did think she looked a bit big once I'd put her in, but it is an easy job to make her smaller. I never realised that she was so small in comparison to the surroundings, even though sensibly she had to be. Once you get a mental picture, it's hard to shake it.
I'll sort that out tomorrow.
Time for bed,
Hope you both got the e-mails. I nearly killed our machine. Is that called computercide?
Love Jane
xxxxx |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1526
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 6:32 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
You cant leave this thread for more than five minutes without a whole new gallery to view!
The Mitre Square is very interesting.I think you have it right there too-Kate still a bit worse for wear without her wits about her and a chilly
but attentive ripper realising he is in with a chance.I love her clothes-they have just the right air of fragilty and frivolity that captures Kate in my mind----lovely!
I am unsure of the AC one.Its true the figure is a bit big and the stockings take away the poignancy somehow-but maybe thats what you wanted here?
But great stuff as always
Natsxxx |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 502
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
|
I love every one. Would Annie have had red striped stockings, though? Just a minor issue. I picture all her clothes as dingy torn and stained. |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 194
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
Hi All,
Thanks for the comments. I've just looked back at my original and something wierd happens when they are uploaded, the colours, which look very muted on my screen lose their softness when they are uploaded. Kate's clothes in the passage look much softer and darker in he original. I'm going to try correcting it a bit more before I post in future. The same with Annie stockings, they were much duller in the original.
The original source material states that she was wearing a black knee length coat, brown bodice, black skirt with 2 petticoats, a red and white handkerchief in the form of a triangle knotted in front and red and white stockings.I know I didn't believe it either!, but there you go.
I had to put her in accurately, even though it looked slightly ridiculous to our eyes. Presumably in 1888 they would have been quite acceptable as leg wear. I suppose if you put a 1970's woman in a crime scene reconstruction it would look a bit strange to someone over a hundred years from now.
The figure is a bit big. I'm going to do a little experiment in a moment and post it, because something doesn't look quite right, somewhere!
Catch you later
Jane
xxxxx |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 195
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
Hi everyone,
I was a bit stumped by the witness reports from Annies inquest about her position in relation to the steps and the fence in the back yard. I had found out from the research you had all kindly posted for me that the fence was only a temporary one and the one that was there at the time of the murder was not the one shown in the later photo’s of the backyard.
Looking at it again, it seems that the fence might also be a little closer to the steps than it was originally. See what you think.
The first pic here is of someone about Annies build standing in the doorway.I believe she was 5ft tall. I may have made her an inch or two taller here, but I don’t think that there is any record of how high the door was. If the building is 18th century, as I believe it was then the doorway would have been quite low. For the purpose of this an inch or two doesn’t really matter much anyway. She’s roughly right.
Here’s the first pic
Now if we move the figure into more or less the correct pose and try to place her in the right place, every thing goes wrong. She is exactly the same figure that was standing up, same size, and same proportions.
Here’s the information I used to work from:
From the Inquest:
.....Witness, continuing, said the deceased was lying between the steps and the fence, with her head towards the house.........
........Annie was lying on her back, parallel with the fence, which was to her left; Her head was about 2' from the back wall and 6"-9" left of the bottom step; Her legs were bent at the knees; Her feet were flat on the ground, pointing toward the shed; Her dress was pushed above her knees; Her left arm lay across her left breast; Her right arm at her side.........
Now if I take the same figure and lay her in the position that Annie was in according to the witness reports, there does not seem to be any way that she could fit in between the steps and the fence according to that criteria.
I know my perspectives suck, but if you close the door and follow the natural line of the fence it seems to be right against the steps where it touches the wall.
Does it look to anyone else as if the neighbour has pinched some of 29 Hanbury’s garden? If the fence is moved back by a foot or possibly even more, then Annie could be placed as per the witness reports. With the fence in the position of the later photo's she would have to have been as thin as a knife to fit in between the steps and the fence!
Am I just imagining it?
Jane
xxxxxx
|
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 460
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Hi Jane
There is this photo on the casebook site which may help.
Rob |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1531
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
I just came on the site and noticed the new posting.
Without double checking this I seem to remember that John Richardson,the son of the landlady,who had come around at approx 4.30-5.00 am to check on the house and the cellar lock, sat on the step and cut a piece of leather from his boot because it was hurting him.When asked at the inquest whether he would have seen the body,had it been there when he was doing this,he said he would"although it would have been possible for her body to have been hidden by the door if it was open.But he was still sure he would have noticed it.So it would seem that the body fitted fairly neatly between the edge of the step and the fence-which must have been a gap of some 18ins.Something is probably slightly wrong with the measurements recorded later by the clerk of the court I would think.
As far as the height of the door goes all these silk weavers cottages have high windows,high ceilings and traditional door heights of what appear to be between 7ft high and the front doors can be grander and even higher than this.They are not cottages really but houses built along elegant 18th century lines.I went inside one recently and was surprised at how airy and spacious the rooms were.The one in Hanbury Street was much of a muchness with all the rest.
Natsxxx |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3004
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
I am not sure if you are right about this one. I could be wrong, but as I see it there are plenty of space between the fence and the steps.
I don't think the fence lined up all the way to the door. If you look at the bottom picture, the point where the two perspective lines meet (the house wall and the fence), seems to be right above her nose, not as has been suggested on the middle picture.
If you compare the first picture (with the standing figure) and the third with the middle one, the fence on the middle picture seems to have been moved forward, for some reason I can't understand at all. It looks weird.
Yes, if you move the fence forward, as has been done in the middle picture with the closed door, there is little room for her body, but surely the position of the fence on that picture is not correct. Especially if you compare with the stones on the ground on the other pictures.
I really don't see a problem here. There is plenty of space for her head in the corner between the fence and the stairs.
In my personal opinion. 
A fun exercise, though.
I could be totally wrong about this (and if that's the case I'll apologise and slap myself), but to me I see no real problem with the space beside the stairs. Surely the position of the fence and the meeting point on the middle picture is not correct.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 196
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Hi Gang,
I think that the description from the witnesses threw me, ' 2ft from the wall and 6 - 9" left of the step. That doesn' t seem right if you look at the picture that Robert posted. 2 feet from the wall would have put her in front of the steps wouldn't it? I know it's not that important but in view of the testimony of Richardson it is of some relevance. I think she would have had to have been closer to the wall. If you ignore the 2 feet part then it does seem fine.
I didn't move the fence in the 2nd picture at all, just extended it to touch the wall. Unfortunately the shadows and the poor quality of the photo near the door in the wide shot made it hard to see what was going on.The picture Rob showed is great to clarify it. I think it must just have been an optical illusion and the fact that the measurments given at the inquest were not quite right.
I'll try putting her in the right size in what should be the right place and see how it looks.
Thanks for the help. It was quite interesting as an exercise, because it is very hard to guess at relative sizes in an empty scene.
love Jane |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 268
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 7:04 pm: |
|
Jane : Lots of things going round my head here.
Firstly, the doors on the opposite side of Hanbury Street are normal height - about 6'5". Which would mean, if the back door was the same (no reason why it wouldn't be) then your Annie is about 6 feet tall here (I think she was 5 feet exactly?).
Also, if the fence was temporary we can't rely on its line. I was interested to see the window above the fence seems to slightly intrude into the back of #27 so maybe the fence followed the same line and in 1888 that window was totally in #29? Can you actually move that fence away a bit and fill in the gap that would be left? I think the fence is about the right height though.
Anyone have a view on this?
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 269
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 7:09 pm: |
|
Just looked at the photos again. I don't think I'm imagining it - if you look about a foot into the back of #27 you will see a thick band of stonework running up the building (about 8" thick) - could this be the original seperation point of the 2 buildings? This would explain it all if so! It's not impossible - we have already had the revelation of the back cellar porch and of course the SINGLE DOOR!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 197
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 7:27 pm: |
|
Hi Hutch,
I have to say that I felt that something was wrong with the fence position, but I didn't know what. I couldn't get her head to fit into the gap, no matter how I tried. I think that evenif you look at the pic that Robert posted it's a very little gap for her head to have been 6 - 9" from the step. I felt that I was squashing her in somehow, and her left shoulder seemed to be naturally wanting to go through the fence!
Her right shoulder also was squashed in by the step to the point of being hard to imagine.
I can see that your right about the door height. Natalie said that it would have been higher, I was thinking that doors were smaller then, but I remember that some Georgian doors were quite high, so I reckon you're right, she is a bit on the hefty side there. I don't think it would make that much difference to squeezing her into that gap though. I don't think the fence was much further across, but I still do think that the neighbours pinched a few inches when they put the new fence up!
That thick band of stonework does look a bit suspicious to me!
Here's a corrected version of Annie, hopefully now the right size and not Queen of the Amazon. Does that look better? She would have had more voluminous skirts I think, but I thought it would have made it hard for people to see the position, so I thinned them down a bit for the same of clarity, otherwise she would have looked like a bundle of rags.
 |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 270
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Jane - yeah! That's much more what I would expect from the descriptions! I think everyone else will agree too. NICE (with the obvious reservations on the word 'nice').
PHILIP
x
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3007
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 8:02 pm: |
|
YEEESSS, Jane!!!! YES!
Now we're talking, girl! SPLENDID!
Gruesome, naturally... but bl*ming SPLENDID!
Great stuff.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 272
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Glenn -
'Blooming' isn't a swear word, so you didn't have to put in the asterisk.
'F***' is a swear word though. 
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 286
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 9:18 pm: |
|
WOW Jane,
I didnt get to look at yesterdays postings so I amd just now seeing the Church passage pic that I asked about. Incredible! Thank you so much,
that really is similiar to how I pictured the scene in my head.
Now, if you could only do a Berner Street with Liz talking to "Mr Broad Shoulders" with Schwartz walking by and pipe man looking on,
that would be the most awesome thing ever. I know it would be hard though since there really is only that one pic (That I know of) of Berner Street that you have already worked with.....wonderfully, I might add!
I hope were not asking too much of your time and energy. I think we all are just awestruck by what you have been doing. You really bring the whole "virtual Reality" thing into play. Its great! Thanks again
Paul
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 503
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 9:50 pm: |
|
It's wonderful how your visualizations can help us understand better what happened. Since Jack didn't concern himself overly with being gentle, would it be impossible that he wedged or jammed Annie into that space which would not normally be a comfortable fit? I'm going to look at the post mortem photo. If rigor had any chance at all to set in, and her shoulders were squeezed unnaturally together it might be noticeable. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3992
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 4:56 am: |
|
Hi Jane
Seeing your super pictures made me think of something that hadn't struck me before : Annie's legs were apparently raised, as in your picture, whereas the other victims' legs seem to have been lying flat on the ground (or bed). Not sure if this means anything, though.....
Robert
(Message edited by Robert on January 28, 2005) |
Dr. Orloff
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 9:46 am: |
|
rippers corner from tom cullen's book.
 |
WhatGODWants
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 7:11 pm: |
|
Hello All, I just wanted to say Jane, as a long time lurker that i think your pictures are great. I'll shut up now and go back to lurking! |
Bob Wall
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Jane,
As an interested but casual visitor to the boards and the subject - other more formal researches are my priority - congratulations on the well-deserved promotion and all the hard and valuable work. You have added colour and context to the ruminations.
Bob
|
Kate Evans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
This is very helpful. Could we have overviews of Mitre square from , say, three or four perspectives, showing the relevant perspectives/angles on the crime scene? That would be brilliant. |
Dr. Orloff
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 5:39 am: |
|
here's another one of mitre square
 |
Jake L
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hello all,
A long-time lurker, closet-ripperologist and a casual labourer in the local 3D market, I just had to but in on seeing this brilliant thread (congrats and thank you Jane for a series of great pics!)
I find this all very close to home because I have recently been trying to get my facts/details right for a 3D model of Mitre Square. Armed with the Foster murder scene sketch, ordnance survey maps, trade directories, the literature and the available reference images (gasp), I'm currently blocking out the general 3D layout of the square. Unfortunately, doing it in threedee means that you actually have to build everything, so don't expect Jane's rapid-fire performance from me ;)
Having only just begun actual construction, I'm aware that a few details remain in the dark and as far as hard fact goes, may remain so forever. So, in order to reach some sort of believable solution regarding Mitre Sq., I shall, if possible, look to you fine people for pointers, clues, opinions and educated guesses.
My questions (for now):
1)
I haven't seen mid-to high resolution versions of really any of the M.Sq pictures. Especially the third picture kindly posted by Philip (of the elusive northeast corner) has lots of detail that is hard to make out. Does anybody know/have access to even slightly larger versions?
2)
Street directories show the name "Philps & Bisiker, builders" in M.S. consistently from 1882-to 1910's. Would they be the owners of the "empty house"? (A faded name plate on the building/adjoining wall would look nice ;))
3)Church passage: does anybody know of photos/paintings/drawings of the Duke St side (the Synagogue, etc,) Am I right in thinking that the "bridge" from Horner bldng to Kearley & co (as seen in the pic posted by Glenn) is a 20th c. add-on?
4) London Corporation has a few (very nice) 1884 paintings of King Street (around the corner from Mitre St) and the north side of St James Place. Does anybody know of photos/paintings/drawings of the south side (backing to Mitre Square)?
As for turning Jane's pics "directly" into 3d, I'm afraid it's not really doable (i.e. it can be done but the results will be poor). Just slapping -however good- 2D paintings/photos on 3d geometry results in a mess rather than Myst, due to several reasons. One of these is that 3D rendering in photorealistic, or semi-photorealistic fashion (as in"Myst") requires that the objects interact with light - and this is to a large extent achieved by texturing each object and surface property separately. Also inherent geometrical distortion and, in many cases, lack of resolution are a problem.
Here's a detail of an aerial shot of the East End from 1929 that also shows Mitre square (London corporation). It has been very useful for trying to figure out the relative heights of the buildings. Unfortunately I couldn't afford the really high-res version, so the blow-up is pixelated.
And here are a couple of early blocking shots of the scene (no lights/textures). I've begun modelling Taylor's shop, dummy cubes are used for the other buildings. The dark blue building is roughly the same height as the taylor house, but does look rather odd to me. I suppose I ought to make it the same height as the empty building.
Cheers,
Jake
p.s. As I´m not a member, so I've no idea when this will get thru. Is there a reason why we can't register via e-mail as I've been able to do on other boards? |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
