| Author |
Message |
    
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 86
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 8:30 pm: | 
|
Suzi-
Beats me, and I seriously doubt that a stocking was removed by Jack. Richard mentioned that the possibilities were that one was removed while she was undressing or getting dressed, and I simply suggested another alternative.
A stocking full of uteri is an interesting thought!
Perhaps not so daft. I'm sure the actual Jack did several things we have no idea about that would curl our toes.
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1070
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 3:00 am: |
|
Hi,
If one looks at the victorian picture on this thread, and the below the knee sock apparently worn by the man, one can see the identical marking on the kelly picture, as kelly wore boots it would be more likely she wore socks, as 99.9 of women today.
Then if one notices that kellys left leg is not clad with sock, and then looks at the bundle on the bed/chair, one can see what could appear to be the other sock/ stocking, which would make sense if the bundle was kellys rolled up clothes.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3051
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 7:58 am: |
|
Re the stocking, Bond says that Kelly's left calf was gashed. So even if that is a stocking on her right leg, she may also have had one on her left, which was removed/ripped up by Jack. This would mean either that Kelly wore her stockings to bed, or had just put them on when she was attacked, or had not had a chance to take either of them off if she was attacked while undressing for bed.
The position of that tin bath under the bed is a bit puzzling. If the murderer stood by the bed, and at certain times reached across it, one would expect his foot to have knocked against the bath and pushed it further under the bed.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1302
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 8:31 am: |
|
Robert et al
Socks???No I cannot believe that!!!! as every woman knows the 'POP SOCK' thing is the invention of the devil! and I tend to feel that the girls wore some form of lisle stocking which ended just above the knee secured by said garter whatever...in the case of Annie the undeniably enviable red and white ones!Robert I agree with that sposition re the stockings tho
As to the bath..yes I see your point! looks a fairly hefty bath to me... perhaps it was pushed under the bed bit further but when the bed was pulled out for the photo then either the bath came with it or whatever
Cheers
Suzi |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 2:47 pm: |
|
Back on Sept 10/11 we were talking about the position of the camera. I have just re-read those posts because I was under the impression, possibly wrongly, that the argument was being proposed that the bed was not moved away from the wall in order to get that second close-up photo.
Having re-read them I see Suzi is saying that in her opinion the bed WAS moved, but still, the photo was taken by a camera mounted on top of the roll of blankets(?, or whatever).
I was on the wrong tack, in previous discussions the opinion had been forwarded that there was no need to move the bed away from the wall if the camera was mounted on top of that roll.
It's a slight variation that I missed.
I was arguing that the bed WAS moved away from the wall and that this would allow enough room to get the tripod in there, at least that was my intent. So I suppose we agree that bed was for sure moved away from the partition?, ok, thats what I was just trying to establish here.
While looking through the memoirs of Walter Dew for another thread I came across his description of the condition of the room as it was when he looked through the broken window, prior to entering the room.
"....There was a table just beneath the window. On the bed, which was drawn obliquely across the small room, was all that remained of a good-looking and buxom young woman." p.145
This does not agree with, I think, Dr Phillips description at the time which tells us that:
"...the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition."
Dr Phillips report taken at the time may be more reliable than Dew's memoirs written 50 years later, but the point is that Dew appears to have witnessed a scene where the bed was indeed pulled away from the wall, as is shown in a contemporary sketch showing four doctors surrounding the bed.
Whether Dew saw this prior to entering the room, or at the time of entering, or following the medical investigation by the doctors, is hard to determine, his memory may be faulty here but it seems hard to justify him making this claim if it was not true.
At some point the bed must have been seen to be obliquely (diagonal) across the room, hence, there is no need to try to justify a camera shot taken from on top of a roll of bedding(?).
However, I have to agree, the second photo is taken from a lower angle and it is quite possible that IF a camera was positioned up close that the 'roll' was actually placed there in order to provide a base for the camera, then the bed was pushed back to the wall to take the big picture, leaving the roll still in full view.
We don't know in which sequence the two photo's were taken, but clearly, four doctors could not make an adequate examination of the corpse while the bed was against the partition, and we know of a contemporary sketch showing the bed pulled away and now we read Walter Dew has a similar recollection of the bed pulled away from the wall.
Regards, Jon
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1310
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Jon-
I'm sorry that you misread the opinion that the second photo was taken from a makeshift tripod from around the bed.
I appears to me that the bed was moved ..not enough to allow in a tripod and all the paraphrenalia but just enough to allow the photographer to slide between the bed and the partition,position his camera on said roll of blankets (or whatever) click the shutter and be back out of the way. However there is no doubt in my mind that the second photograph of the table and it's contents against the light from the door was taken from this position,whether sooner or later.
Undoubtedly the bed was moved diagonally or whatever..it would have been a neccesity to allow the assembled medical men etc to see what remained of the cadaver on the bed from all angles...At this point I can never quite believe that the photographer,tripod or no tripod would not have been called in to take a few more 'shots'..however..
As to Dew's statement regarding a 'good looking and buxom young woman'...Hmmmm a tad prurient I feel,designed to appeal to the readers of the day,rather than to any actual s.o.c. statement! Maybe some more of Dew's statements should be viewed in a similar light.
Cheers
Suzi
"ONLY YOU CAN MAKE YOU FEEL INFERIOR"
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 249
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Suzi.
Dew is likely just being kind, are you saying Marie Kelly was not attractive?.
I thought there was more than one opinion that she had been a handsome woman.
Regards, Jon |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 290
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 5:33 pm: |
|
For the record, I'm not convinced the bed was moved for any photo. I don't see why the camera couldn't have been placed atop that bundle (which probably was there prior to the photo being taken) and a photo taken without the bed being moved. A comparison of the angles of the two shots to me shows that the bed was in the same position for both shots.
And I think anyone writing an autobiography decades after the fact is going to have stories that might not be accurate. There are other points in Dew's recollection that are outright wrong, others that would be highly unusual if true, and many of indeterminate origin. I'm highly skeptical of his statements, as I am of anyone who is writing something with the purpose of making themselves sound more important than they probably were and especially after so many years. Even if he was being 100% honest, memories change over the years quite easily.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 167
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 4:31 am: |
|
Hi all,
Hear Hear Dan. Couldn't agree more.
Jon I'd love to see the sketch you mention, I don't think I have seen that one. Any chance of pointing me towards a copy.
Dan is right, there was no need to move the bed for the picture and there is nothing unusual about the placement of the bundle. Furthermore I don't think either of the pictures display any evidence that the bed was moved as they most likely would if it had. Whilst I would like to see the sketch I would state that no matter what it contains it is a sketch of the scene and therefore is someones artistic interpretation probably drawn from a picture in their mind.
I'm with Richard on the Stocking idea. There is no mention of a cut on the right calf and it's hard to see how if that were a cut it could have been missed. While I am no expert on how wounds look post morterm I would think that in most cuts the skin on either side would tend to pull outwards, yet in the photo we see that if it is a cut the skin would be pulling inwards.
Scotty.
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 6:45 am: |
|
Hi Scott.
I am going to try to upload a copy, not sure how large it will turn out, I'll do a blowup of the small detail afterwards.
I just want to say though, there were significant blood spatters on the partition, correct?, there was even a significant pool of blood on the floor under the bed, yes?.
Are we to believe the police & doctors left the bed against the partition?, certainly not.
Part of the investigation would have neccessitated the relocation of the bed anyway.
The question is not whether it was moved, but when it was moved.
It was moved, you can take that to the bank.
Anyhow, see how this turns out..
 |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 251
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 6:55 am: |
|
It only stands to reason that four doctors are not going to assemble themselves along one side of such a small bed, they naturally will have need to operate from both sides. Hence, they moved the bed.
This is the blowup of the small detail from the larger pic above.
Ok, here we go again..
 |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 7:05 am: |
|
Were the photo's taken before the medical investigation or afterwards?
We simply do not know, I wouldn't suggest the bed was moved in order to take the photo's, but it was moved in order to conduct a complete investigation. At some point photo's were taken, thats all we can reasonably determine.
I think there is uncertainty as to whether the bed was moved between photo's, that we may never know.
Regards, Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1314
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 7:05 am: |
|
Hi Jon
Good one!
Right the bed has very obviously been moved in this drawing.Its interesting to see the photographer standing at the end of the bed with his flash pan...Wonder where that photograph is 'eh?
Cheers
Suzi |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 295
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 2:50 pm: |
|
If you accept drawings by the Illustrated Police News as accurate, at some point there was a photo taken with MJK's body on the bed and with the bed shoved up completely against the *opposite* wall from which it actually was found. And, while we are at it, there's also a drawing of the Ripper escaping the locked room through a window...
I think these drawings are pretty worthless as a point of argument about what really happened or not.
As far as whether the bed was ever moved... I don't think there's a reason to believe that it had to have been ever moved. But if it was, I would imagine it was after the body was removed, or, at the very least, after the parts were taken off the side table. I can't see them purposefully moving that table with the body pieces precariously balanced there out a foot or more, then moving the bed parallel to that and lining everything up perfectly (as the comparison between the two photos shows the items are the same distance apart and same angles in both photos), blocking the door in the process (which we'd probably see in the image if it happened), and then taking the photo. Doesn't make sense. And if it did happen, I'd expect the photo to be taken from the same height as the other, which it wasn't. The second photo was taken from a lower angle, conspicuously corresponding to the height of the bed. To me that's a good indication it was on the bed, which wouldn't require moving anything.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Dan
OK I'll agree that the Police News drawings etc are all but worthless and very much of a penny dreadful or at the least a weekend tabloid sort of shock horror BUT...I cannot believe that that bed wasn't moved away from the 'wall'..it appears so in 'THE photograph' and most ceratinly the Pic No 2 was taken from a point low down around the rt hand calf area,the light from the door seems to point to this,I dont believe that the small table with its'contents' was moved though and that the photographer merely squeezed down between the bed and the partition to get that shot....who's to say that the bed was up against the partition in the first place though???None of us I reckon ....sadly!
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1317
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Dan
As to the 'angle' of THE PHOTO ..that appears to have been taken from a tripod, normally fixed ,maybe 3-4 feet from the body..There appears to be no problem at all with the angle or mechanics of this shot its the 2nd one no doubt the as yet unseen 'others' that concern me!
Cheers
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3073
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Hi Dan
They'd have had to move the bed at some point. How else observe the blood pool under it? I can't see Bond getting on his hands and knees in the gore and sticking his head under the bed. Plus, the police would have needed to check under the bed to see if the killer dropped anything that rolled under it.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 3:44 am: |
|
Hi,
I believe it is certain that the bed was moved, as Robert says the police would have looked for clues all over that tiny room.
I Believe originally the bed was not right up against the partition, lets be realistic, when Barnett was working at the market , he would have risen early, therefore if the bed was right up against the wall, he would have had to sleep on the side nearest the door , and mary on the side against the wall, so that he could get out of bed early morning.
However if there was a gap between partition and bed he could have slept on the right and left the bed that way., and kelly also could without rousing each other.
Also pictured in the sketch the unused wash stand was to right side of the bed up against the partition, which obviously would give a space to get out of bed on the right .
RegardsRichard. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 296
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 4:09 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
Well, I suppose at some point they probably did move the bed, but I think the evidence points away from the idea that they did before the photos were taken.
Hi Richard,
It's fairly evident to me that the bed was right up against the wall, based both upon the photo as well as the small size of the room. The sketch with the wash stand you are referring to is another artistic interpretation that has no factual evidence to back it up, as we have already discussed here previously.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1323
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 10:32 am: |
|
Hi Richard-
As I said I think that the bed was never right up against that partition,the bed head and the corner of the room just dont line up in the first(if indeed it was the first) photograph just dont line up.
Robert-
Wonder what horrors they did find under that bed...tin bath and pool of blood aside!??
Cheers
Suzi |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 12:13 pm: |
|
"If you accept drawings by the Illustrated Police News as accurate,..."
It's a rendition, nothing more, it could have been witnessed by a policeman, it could have been taken from a photographic plate, we can only guess at the source. It may be only the result of discussions between the press and the medical men, though I don't think they were as loose with information as some people.
"..at some point there was a photo taken with MJK's body on the bed and with the bed shoved up completely against the *opposite* wall from which it actually was found."
Obviously Dan that is a drawing taken from the actual photographic plate, though drawn in reverse. We see that same sketch provided in the correct view - see the Ultimate Sourcesbook.
"And, while we are at it, there's also a drawing of the Ripper escaping the locked room through a window..."
Knowing the difference between 'hypothetical' and 'actual' events is difficult for some I suppose.
The killer escaping through a window adds drama, the doctors sketch has no drama.
Actually, for what its worth that figure appears to be climbing 'in' not climbing 'out' to me.
"I think these drawings are pretty worthless as a point of argument about what really happened or not."
Right, I know, we are not talking about 'proof', the best we can hope for is some consensus in circumstantial evidence, and that is what I am showing. Two apparently unrelated sources (Dew & 'sketch') appear to suggest the same thing, ie, that at some point during the investigation the bed was moved while the body was still in situ.
It's nothing more than a reasonable deduction based on what we have left. Apart from the fact that the doctors would need complete access for them all to stand around and do 'their thing'.
Reasonable deduction based on circumstantial evidence, nothing more.
Regards, Jon |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Suzi commented:
"As I said I think that the bed was never right up against that partition,the bed head and the corner of the room just dont line up in the first(if indeed it was the first) photograph just dont line up."
Yes, actually I wasn't going to mention that but you raise a good point. If we draw perspective lines we can see the bed head is not into the corner and there is also a very slight difference between the angle drawn by the horizontal detail (of a door?) in the wall, and the angle of the bed.
In fact I see a faint possibility that this 'roll' we have been talking about may not actually be "on" the bed at all, but has been placed on something sitting between the bed and the partition.
I wasn't going to mention it because it's so hard to make a definite line for the far side of the bed. You can just see a small section of bed between her right leg and her hand. It's not enough to draw any conclusions on. (or any lines for that matter  )
regards, Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Jon-
Your 'faint possibility 'as to my original roll being on 'something!' between the bed and the partition seems to make a good point!! (Might just because I agree but there we are!)
Have done loads of lines from bed- body -wall and corner here too so have come to the conclusion that that's the case!
Now if IF we assume that photo No1 was taken before anything (including the bed....AND THE ROLL!!!)was moved this may put another aspect on this!!!...........
RIGHT! back to the beginning of this thread folks!....WHAT IS THAT??!!!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 297
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Hi Jon,
You wrote:
"It's a rendition, nothing more"
Yet you've tried to make it into more and still do.
"we can only guess at the source"
You want to guess that it came from actual information, when a number of these illustrations are just whatever the artist dreamed up.
"Obviously Dan that is a drawing taken from the actual photographic plate, though drawn in reverse."
There's nothing obvious at all about that idea. It's an unsupported assumption, and a rather bad one, in my opinion.
"We see that same sketch provided in the correct view - see the Ultimate Sourcesbook."
Yes, and the only reason we do is because Stewart Evans knew that the illustration was wrong and purposefully flipped it so it would look slightly more accurate in his book. That's modern reinterpretation of the illustration, not anything about how it was originally created.
The illustration is also incorrect because it shows the room as much, much wider than it actually was. But I suppose some people could try to use that to show that the room was actually very wide and that the reports of its dimensions were incorrect, all because the drawing must be accurate.
"Knowing the difference between 'hypothetical' and 'actual' events is difficult for some I suppose."
A cheap shot, and rather ironic at that.
"Actually, for what its worth that figure appears to be climbing 'in' not climbing 'out' to me."
The caption is pretty clear.
"Right, I know, we are not talking about 'proof', the best we can hope for is some consensus in circumstantial evidence, and that is what I am showing."
That's what you are trying to show, but I don't think you are doing a good job at it, which is why I posted my comments. Anyone can come up with circumstantial evidence for anything, as we have seen in the hundreds of contradictory theories about the case. In this instance, I think actual photographic evidence is stronger than suppositions.
You assume that a sketch of four doctors surrounding the body is accurate (although you conceeded already that other drawings were made for dramatic or visual purposes and not factual renditions), and assume that Dew's recollections in an autobiography 50 years later are accurate, and then decide that the bed was moved when the body was still on it. Then you jump from that to assuming that it was moved before a photo was taken, when the photographic evidence shows otherwise.
""Apart from the fact that the doctors would need complete access for them all to stand around and do 'their thing'."
This is not a fact, this is another opinion.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1326
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Don-
Well put Sir
Wish I could have been so succinct!!!
However...all drawings such as they are must be sadly considered to be an artist's impression and that comes from one who for better or for worse was trained as such! Re that as you say no drawing can be considered to show exactly what was where and when sadly and things such as the width of the room etc (which for what it's worth always looks HUGE in that drawing) are very much a source of conjecture,the artists's viewpoint.talent etc
Whichever way we try to look and re look at these drawings...that is all they are with all their faults,albeit their charm...they are drawings at the end of the day NOT photographs and THAT BED IS UNDOUBTEDLY away from the wall!!!!(for whatever reason!)
Cheers
Suzi |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 256
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Hi Dan, you commented..
"..number of these illustrations are just whatever the artist dreamed up."
What were you saying about unsupported assumptions?
"..I think actual photographic evidence is stronger than suppositions."
What photographic evidence?, I thought it was the interpretation of that 'evidence' that we were discussing. If it was 'clear' there would not be any discussion.
"..Then you jump from that to assuming that it was moved before a photo was taken, when the photographic evidence shows otherwise."
If you recollect I wrote:
"..I wouldn't suggest the bed was moved in order to take the photo's, but it was moved in order to conduct a complete investigation. At some point photo's were taken, thats all we can reasonably determine.
I think there is uncertainty as to whether the bed was moved between photo's, that we may never know."
That prettywell sums up my thoughts on the issue. And the photo's don't indicate anything as to the chronology of events that morning.
Thats why we're here...
I found something of chronological value here..
The I.P.N. of Nov. 17th informs us that photographs were taken at about 2 O'clock.
The Times of Nov. 10th informs us, in a sequentially disjointed fashion that while Dr Phillps was conducting his preliminary examination a photographer was sent for:
"..(he)..arrived and took photographs of the body, the organs, the room, and its contents."
So it appears, possibly, that photographs were taken after the first preliminary exam by Dr Phillips but before the indepth exam including the doctors who followed (Bond, Gordon-Brown, Gabe).
Anyone know of anything else?
Regards, Jon
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1331
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Jon-
OK the photographs were taken at 2.00..
I suspect that Dr Philips had a quick look at the body on the bed and called for a photographer to record the scene...this was Photo No 1.. and then the bed was moved and the gathering took place and thats where Photo No2 was taken and I'm sure lots of others at which we can only guess
Cheers
Suzi
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 258
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi.
Well thats the crux of the disagreement isn't it, ....would Dr Phillips have had the bed moved in order to inspect the extent of the loss of blood on the floor?, before the 'grand exam'.
I feel confident that it would have been moved for the 'grand exam' by Bond, Gordon-Brown, Gabe, Dukes and Phillips, but we can hardly expect a consensus on that possibility.
regards, Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1339
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 10:26 am: |
|
Jon
Am sure that Bond would have made an initial examination merely I suspect by a short professional look!
Surely it would have been obvious that the pool of blood was encroaching on them before they moved the bed before the 'all round' examination!...Mind you this all depends on when you think the body was despatched.....By 2.00pm it may well have clotted a tad!
Suzi |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 259
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Suzi.
Bond?, Phillips you mean?.
Yes, Dr Phillips made a preliminary examination between 1:30-2:00, some photo's were apparently taken around 2:00pm prior to the arrival of the rest of the team of doctors.
I believe 6 doctors in all were present in that little 10'x12' (or 12'x12') room so moving the bed away from the wall would have been the practical thing to do. It was suggested that maybe the bed was moved after the body was removed, but according to the info that has come down to us, the body was taken out about 4:00pm and the place was swiftly boarded & locked up, that was the end of the investigation for that day.
I'm still not sure we can agree on the actual time of death, so many conflicting factors.
Regards, Jon
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1343
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Jon!!!
No James!!!!
Right I believe as Ive said that the body was photographed before any bed movement took place I am quite sure that the photographer ,bed roll or not made surethat he had the right angle for his shots!!!
Suzi
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1465
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 4:43 pm: |
|
G'day,
I haven't got time to read all this so I don't know who's argument I am supporting, but to suggest that Mary's bed/body was moved to get the right angle for a photograph, is so stupid!
It wasn't a fashion 'shoot'!
I know the methods of the police were only young and they had a lot to learn, but I don't think they were stupid!
If the photographs were taken at 2:00, then I strongly believe that nothing was moved until after that time.
LEANNE |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 263
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Hi Leanne, thanks for flying by..
I think you have touched upon two separate issues.
I don't recall the suggestion that the bed was moved in order to get a better picture.
The suggestion is..
The bed was moved in order to make a more complete investigation of the murder site, and the body was still on the bed when it was moved.
The report that photo's were taken around 2 O'clock only means before the thorough exam commenced.
Whether any were taken after is not known.
Regards, Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1344
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Leanne
I agree with you!!!
The thing is..I think because am rapidly losing the will to live here..is that once everyone presumably photographer and all FINALLY got into the room that the first thing to be done was GET THE PICTURE!(as you so rightly say it wasn't a fashion shoot!!!...love the line!)
Once that was done I'm sure that Bond had a cursory poke about and then instructed that the bed be moved and off they went for the full 'investigation'...undoubtedly taking the 2nd picture and God knows how many others on the way
Cheers
Suzi
od knows how many others on the way! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1345
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Ooooooooooooooooooooooops Od knows what happened there!oh well I think you get the drift!
Suzi |
Greg Hutton
Sergeant
Username: Greg
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Regarding the photos, were they used in the inquest of any of the victims? |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 68
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Greg,
Dr. Phillips produced a photograph at Kelly's inquest.
Nina |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1351
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Greg!
Youre good at photos as I remember!!!! Yes there was a photo at the inquest and I presume it was THE PHOTO
Cheers
Suzi |
Greg Hutton
Sergeant
Username: Greg
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 6:29 pm: |
|
just the one photo used at the inquest, what about the other victims?
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1356
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 6:44 pm: |
|
Guess they were used too!
Flash Bang wallop what a picture!
s |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3107
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 6:51 pm: |
|
"Hutchinson can you lend me half a sixpence?" |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1357
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 5:59 am: |
|
Robert-
Nice one!!! 
Just 'steeling' myself for the next one!!!
|
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 74
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 3:19 am: |
|
Greg,
I believe that the Jury viewed the bodies. For the Stride inquest: The jury having viewed the body, the following evidence was taken
The Times October 2
Nina |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 5:54 am: |
|
Hi all
Having worked on a 3D model of the room we studied the position and dementions of the bed with some interest. We concluded that the bed would not have been flat against the partician. There would have been space for a gap.
Given Mary Kelly's profession having the bed flat against the partician would have been impracticle and also somewhat noisy.
We also considered the tin bath. Given Marys clean aprons, and the wash pump in the yard we felt it would have been in regular use for washing. However some people put forward the idea that the bath may have helped support the bed. Which we did not buy.
Given the dementions of the room and probable size of the bed we concluded that there would have been a gap between the bed and the partition, which we allowed for in our model.
Jeff |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Nina.
Yes, the Jury always viewed both the body, in the mortuary, and the crime scene, always, part of proceedure.
Thanks for that Jeff, I had forgotten that opinion.
Regards, Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1364
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff
I read what you say with some interest!..OK we've all made the models as I said earlier on this thread
The 'thing' about Mary's bed being againsnt the partition and therefore a tad noisy is....undoubtedly a 'problem' I suppose but nothing that should really concern us here in the Dorset St of 1888..especially as that partition was against the stairs rising to Mrs Prater (and Diddles) abode! NOT to an adjoining 'room'
As to the tin bath I feel that it was probably something of a necessity and in Mary's case a supreme luxury!!! Imagine being able to wash a) yourself and b) your clothes! hmmm heaven!
Cheers
Suzi |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:37 pm: |
|
There is also that question to Mrs Prater, "did you hear any beds or tables being pulled about?"
Regards, Jon
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1367
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 5:48 pm: |
|
Mrs p I feel pulled her own tables across and then got some sleep waled of course by dids to the tune of oh Murder and then slept unti 5 ish before heading probably wisely off to the 10 Bells1 Did do a longer more sensible post here but someone crashed it for me!!! Grrrrrrrrrr
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1368
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 6:04 pm: |
|
ooooooh god!!! That was meant to say that Mrs Prater pulled her own two tables over her door and slept until the divine Diddles crept over and then she heard the ubiquitous Oh Murder and then thinking nothing of it slept until 5 ish and headed off to Mrs Ringers
Cheers
Suzi |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 7:09 am: |
|
Hi suzy
I'd presumed that the stairs ran against the out side wall running up. Not the length of the partician across the room on the other side of the partician. Have I got this wrong?
We studuied the partician and came to the conclusion that it was sum what flimsy makeshift construction possibly made out of old doors. If it lent against a vertical up right of the stairs it would have been more solid than perhaps we perceived.
I acknowledge that the room next door was empty and possibly used by McCarthy as a store room.
Still there are so many holes. Paul Begg raised an interesting point that in the original construction of the building Kelly's room may have been the Kitchen. Thus making the fire larger than you might suspect but we have no records/photo's looking towards the fire so sketches are the best we can go on.
Jeff |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1372
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Jeff
Right ! As far as we know ..the partition(!) divided Marys room from the shall we say storage area at the right hand side of Mc Carthy's shop..(as you would look at it if you had the misfortune to be standing in the middle of Dorset St and looking towards Millers Ct)
As to the construction of the 'partition' I admit it lookks a tad flimsy but old doors are a possibility...mind you there are other opinions on the boards as to this
.
As To Paul's comment re the kitchen...(sory Paul haven't read it yet but Xmas soon!)It is of course possible but I'd doubt that that would have been behind the shed area.....BUT not armed with the facts will not comment further (till Xmas!)_
For what its worth I reckon the fireplace to be about15"x19" I know this cos have just measured mine and the room isn't a lot bigger than our Marys!!!!!
Cheers
and good luck!
Suzi |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Hi Susy
From what was said in conversation Paul seemed to beleive that the original construction plans for millers court may still be on record. The fact that a partician was put in seems to sujest that the building had been adapted from its original design. If Kelly's room had been the kitchen for the original design it would explain a larger than would be normal fire place for the room. I've a little experience with victorian fire places having fitted four in my house in walthamstow period 1880. However Millers court was probably of an earlier design. The kitchen idea also comes from the mention of the kettle. This may have been on a rod that could be moved in and out of the fire. Not a usual feature for such a poor abode.
Still interested in the position of the stairs on the other side of partician. In alot of victorian designs the stairs do go across the room. I used to have an old two up two down in Black Horse road, very old 1820's 30's. The stairs for this were very steep and in the corner running up the conecting wall, not across the room. Guess designs could vary.
How did you figure the lay out of Millers court stairs would have gone? Not sure how important this is but it might make a differance to how solid the partician was and whether it was practical for the bed to sit flat against it.
Thanks for your help. Jeff |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1405
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff!
God thought I'd posted this earlier and went off for a look for the plan of Millers Ct ! ops!got lost! in the boards!
will have a look and post in a mo! x suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1407
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Right got it Jeff!
Go to DISSERTATIONS...GO TO VICTIMS... AND THEN THE WHITECHAPEL DOSSIER-DORSET ST AND MILLERS CT BY VIPER! SHOULD FIND ALL YOU NEED THERE! ( sorry bout caps there! )
Suzi (Dont know why that smiley went in there! but!!!!!!!!) |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 25
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 9:37 am: |
|
Hi
I can't work out whether the debate about elasticated stockings or garters and the mark on Mary Kelly's right leg was ever resolved on this thread, but I came across an interesting snippet today.
As I have said on another thread, I have been reading a book printed in 1900 'A system of legal medicine' in which an accurate account of the mutilations of Mary Kelly was given by Dr. Hebbert ( who worked with Dr. Bond) and used to illustrate certain forensic techniques for identification purposes.
In the book, one of the techniques that was described as useful for identification purposes, in terms of deciding the class of a murder victim was the examination of the legs for garter marks;
>> Another mark is that made by the garter on the legs of a woman. This may be above or below the knee, and is best seen below. It is more customary to find this mark among the lower classes, and is usually below the knee, I believe because the richer classes wear suspenders or garters above the knee.
This may be a meanstoward establishing identity.<<
sorry Richard but elasticated stockings aren't mentioned.
I would recommend reading this book to anyone interested in forensic techniques of the time, and also anyone interested in the the Pinchin Street and Whitehall mystery, as these are discussed in a forensic context at great length.
Debra
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page