| Author |
Message |
    
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3298
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 8:48 am: | 
|
A new dissertation by Simon Wood can now be found on the Casebook at:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/room-13-millers-court.html
Simon discusses the second Kelly photograph and offers some alternate interpretations of the crime scene at Millers Court.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 695
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 10:15 am: |
|
A very in-depth and considered appraisal.
However, on first brief reading I have a strong view I would like explained.
I have big issues with the suggestion the strip of light is in fact an internal organ! This was not mentioned in any official report (and in fact gives credence to this stupid notion that 'he had strung her intestines from picture hooks around the room like Xmas decorations...') and no matter how good Photoshop may be, you are working with a small, old and apparently altered image.
As far as I am concerned, the door was open but what you are seeing is a gap in the HINGED side of the door, not the handle side.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 243
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
Obviously the bed has had to be moved to fit the camera ( for taking the photo ) into the room. However , I think I agree with Phil that the strip of light is from the hinged side of the door.
Nice floorplans of 13 Miller's Court though. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 702
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
"On the bed, which was drawn obliquely across the small room, was all that remained of a good-looking and buxom young woman..." --Walter Dew, I Caught Crippen.
oblique, a. 1. Having a slanting direction or position; declined from the verticle, or from the horizontal. (OED)
The way I read it, when Dew first peered into the room, the bed was at a rather severe angle from the wall. Enough that he remarked on it, and remembered it. Damn near diagnal, perhaps. Ergo, I don't think that Mr. Wood's diagram #4 is too far off. The bed was orginally at an angle, and lifted back against the wall when the Inspectors needed to enter the room. The window was removed and the 2nd, more famous photograph taken. RP |
Simon Wood
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Regarding the door to Room 13, it opened as shown in my diagram. How else could Kelly and Barnett have reached through the broken window to operate the bolt/latch/whatever? If the door opened the other way they would have needed gorilla-length arms. |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 696
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
You misunderstand me, Simon.
I am saying - correctly - the hinge of the door was on the side closest to Dorset Street, hence the handle side WAS closest to the window as it would need to be. I am merely pointing out that in my opinion the shaft of light is through the hinged side. The handle side is off-shot beyond the right hand edge, which is not disputing your view of the door's location or the way it was hinged.
RP/RJ - This, to me, would suggest Dew is commenting on a later scenario after the police had entered and taken photographs. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone would ever position their bed diagonally across a tiny room filling it up entirely. It's extremely unlikely - unless - as is far MORE likely - Jack had pulled the bed to that position afterwards for some unknown reason?
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
I agree that the light is coming through the hinge side. It makes sense according to the position of the table in diagram 4.
Is it impossible that the police moved the bed to get a shot from the other side? Perhaps they moved it looking for clues and it was then thought it would be good idea to get a different shot angle.
I don't see any real secrets in this photo, but I do appreciate the work on the diagrams and dissertation.
Thanks,
Mike |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 703
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 4:08 pm: |
|
Philip--If you recall, Dew was at the scene long before the door was forced. He's describing the scene as it looked through the window; he states this specifically. Certainly it would make no sense for Dew to give a description of the crime scene after the police had already entered the room and rearranged everything.
"For God's sake, Dew," he cried. " Don't look."
I ignored the order, and took my place at the window. When my eyes had become accustomed to the dim light I saw a sight which I shall never forget to my dying day... 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... Inspector Beck quickly recovered from his shock and sent messages to the chief station by quick-running constables... Obviously nothing could be done for the woman, but Dr. Phillips was sent for as a matter of form and was soon on the spot... No attempt was made by us to break into the room. It was deemed advisable to wait until the higher-placed officers arrived on the scene before anything was touched."
I don't think we really have any reason to doubt the bed was at an oblique angle; the photograph shows it, and a man who was at the scene specifically remarked on it. I tend believe your last sentence is the correct explanation, but I would suggest that the "unknown reason" is the horrible fact that the murderer wanted to work over both sides of the corpse. Cheers.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on September 01, 2005) |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 701
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
That would make sense to me.
This leads us back to the leg up/leg down scenario as well.
MJK 1/2 are with the bed against the wall and the leg down. If we now suppose that MJK 3 was actually taken first, then we can discard our recent arguments that the leg was propped up for the next photo. It may have already been propped up and then FELL as the bed was put back against the wall for MJK 1/2?
I don't want to get involved in the rows and theories that surround this whole area, but that's my two-penneth.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2902
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Hi all
It appears to me IMHO having perused this big time that the problem is with the 'leg'!)
Now OK the Right leg which we know as being 'up' was of course there and probably stayed there owing to oncoming rigor.. BUT the bed may well have been moved in and out from the 'partition' by the police photographers to get better (or worse )shots at the scene....
For Gods sake it was quite a scene and maybe there was more than one photographer from the police taking photographs!
It seems to me that moving the bed in and out from that partition would be very sensible to get better shots because they'd be needed....can't help but think that there are a LOT more taken at the scene that SADLY may never be seen.
I just think IMHO (again sorry!) that there was a LOT of bed moving that fateful morning and that all we have to remonstrate on are those three!!!!
Sad but true
Suzi |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 794
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
To address at least some of the questions:
4. With the bed in the middle of the room when MJK 3 was taken, why didn’t the photographer simply step back a foot or two to capture the full detail of MJK’s body?
Probably because other pictures (now lost) were taken. This would then be one of a series.
6. Why has the world been led to believe that Mary Kelly was murdered with the bed in the position shown in MJK 1?
Has it been? I must admit that I have never previously given the matter much thought - but neither do I recall any previous discussion. So have we been misled - or is it just a previously unrecognised problem.
As for who moved the bed, it could be the killer - strangle her and cut her throat, then move the bed to make it easier to take the body apart. But it could equally be the police.
I presume that the position of the bloodstains on walls and floor would have determined at what stage the bed was moved (if not by the police).
Phil
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 871
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 7:57 pm: |
|
I don't see any evidence at all that the bed was obliquely across the room in either photo. In fact, based upon visual cues it looks clear to me that it was up against the wall in both photos and that nothing was moved between shots.
I honestly don't at all get where people can see the things they think they see here.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 772
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 2:29 pm: |
|
As to the light source I think I can clarify the issue.
I have a vague recollection of either a dramatization or a picture of a Victorian era photographer taking a picture. The man stands behind a camera which is on a tripod and holds an object out to the side with one hand and his arm almost fully extended.
I googled the history of photography, wanting to find a picture but the best I could do was a description. When you get to the home page click on processes and scroll down to lighting.
http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/
The object in the photographer's hand is a pan in which is placed magnesium powder. The shutter on the camera is opened and the powder is ignited. It gives off a burst of light as it explodes into flame. Then the shutter is closed. This was the first primitive flash technology.
The dissertation describes a light source which is not intrinsic to the scene and is lateral to the camera lens. The pan of flash powder would be consistent with this.
If you are the holder of MJK's other pictures and you are reading this, have you ever considered scanning them and emailing them to this website. You would not have to give up the originals. Nobody would ever have to know who you are and where you are. Set up a special email address in Yahoo. Use a public access computer such as one in a library.
(Message edited by diana on September 02, 2005) |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2910
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Diana
Good! this has been discussed somewhere re the position of Kelly's body must look up where! will post when Ive got it!!!
Suz |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 709
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
Hi Diana
I don't go with this 'tweaking in Photoshop' showing the strip of light is closer to the lens. This is a poor quality image of great age and I don't think 'tweaking' will reveal anything new. I personally feel the tweaking has CREATED the difference in distance.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 720
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 7:58 pm: |
|
Diana,
With any sort of flash, be it old flash powder or a modern strobe you will get deep, harsh shadows and that does not seem to be the case here. Certainly, the first Kelly photo, with its lack of shadows and wide tonal range is consistent with a time exposure. And while there are some deeply shadowed areas in the second photo they do not seem consistent with a flash photograph. Rather, they seem the result of some less amenable available light conditions. The speed of the emulsion used on the plates was obviously very slow, but then there was no chance of the subject moving so a long exposure was possible.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2926
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Hi,
you ,mentioned the leg had been drawn in? I see what you mean (i think) but is that a leg? i though the leg was somewhere else, nearer the other leg. Its more like an arm or something??
I have been known to be wrong before though!!
Cheers
Jenni
ps v. interesting though!!
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Simon Wood
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 7:56 pm: |
|
Hi Philip,
I don't want to bang on about the strip of light, but it is an established fact that on the morning of November 9th the sun was towards the south and there was 100% cloud cover. It was a pretty dull and miserable morning from all accounts. What, then, is the source of the brilliant light coming through the 'gap in the door'? |
Gordon Bennett
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
You all seem to have missed a point. The door could have been wide open. Based on the diagrams if the door was open say 70 to 90 degrees this could result in a thin strip of light from the camera's view point. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 732
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Simon,
If it was indeed a lengthy time-exposure then any light coming from outside, even on a dull day, would be rendered as a bright and indistinct highlight.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 717
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 8:01 pm: |
|
Hi Simon -
Erm... daylight in a dark room on a long exposure? Come on, you can't seriously believe that is an internal organ?!
I have been looking at MJK 3 in ref to MJK 1/2 quite closely on the train home from tonight's Ripper walk and I have found some touchstones I hadn't seen before which could give us a better angle of the position of the photographer.
For a start, the crude 'hand' on the bottom left is too far down to be a hand. I am certain now it is the ruffled up bedclothes by her right shin.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 778
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Hold it. With an excited mob outside I'm going to fling the door wide open and leave it that way for five or ten minutes so I can get light to expose a photographic plate? So they can all get a good look? |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 735
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 10:43 pm: |
|
Diana,
The Court was closed off. There was an excited mob on Dorset Street but not in Millers Court.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 721
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 6:37 am: |
|
Sarah Lewis reported at the Inquest the residents within Millers Court were kept in the rooms by the police until 5pm - an hour after the removal of the body - so they were clearly being thorough.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Gordon Bennett
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Apologies for my poor powers of expression.
I'll just say one thing. When I think of the door as wide open, the room in the second picture begins to look like a room again with the perspectives magically making sense.
I hope people can make use of this if it turns out to be a useful supposition.
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1679
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Hi everyone
In regard to the pieces of flesh hung from nails at 13 Miller's Court, that could have been the case even though it is not evident in the existing photographs of the crime scene which do show cut-off flesh on surfaces in the room, e.g., the bedside table and possibly the bed. We should I think leave ourselves open to the possibility that some pieces of flesh or organs were strung around the room, which would have added to the extraordinary horror of the scene as reported by witnesses who saw it.
I do though find off base the recent claim by Simon Wood that the white strip we see in the smaller photograph, which we have all it seems assumed was a strip of light, is actually a hanging organ.
Simon wrote, ". . . I believe it to be something dangling from the ceiling that has been caught in the bright light source (just visible) coming from the right of the photo (more on this later). I have no knowledge of the working parts of the human body, but would suggest that it is something internal. Notice how it is slightly bulbous at its base and appears stretched in places as though sagging on its own weight."
I think the object is too long and straight to be an organ. How would Jack have got up on the ceiling to have hung it?
I concede that the killer might have hung body parts on accessible nails, for example, sticking out from the shoddy looking walls or nails in furniture maybe but not, I think, on nails in the ceiling.
So the strip of white in the small photograph is not, I think, what Simon believes it is. Simon seems to think that the photograph was done using an artificial light source. Yet that soft glow on the bedside table is certainly sunlight, which I believe would have been observable in a photograph taken with a long time exposure even in that enclosed and claustrophobic court off Dorset Street on a dull day, which according to weather reports it apparently was on Saturday, November 9, 1888. An extended time exposure would, I believe, have captured enough light to photograph the scene. Another indicator that I am right is that neither the big nor the small photograph show the stark shadows we would expect from an artificial light source.
Best regards
Chris
(Message edited by Chrisg on November 09, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 874
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 9:17 pm: |
|
Chris - maybe I am missing something here, and without meaning to sound too sycophantic I don't wish to challenge too deeply a chap of your standing, but if there was anything hung up on nails why does no report whatsoever (to my knowledge) of the time mention it? There is no way it would have been omitted.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1681
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 1:05 am: |
|
Hi Philip
There appear to be at least one report that flesh and organs were hung on nails, as we have discussed on the "Forthcoming Release - By Ear and Eyes" (Magellan book) thread.
As David O'Flaherty notes, Inspector Moore told the Pall Mall Gazette in 1889:
"This was about the worst of the murders," said the inspector when they reached Dorset-street. "He cut the skeleton so clean of flesh that when I got here I could hardly tell whether it was a man or a woman. He hung the different parts of the body on nails and over the backs of chairs. It must have taken him an hour and a half in all. And when he was ready to go he found the door was jammed and had to make his escape through the larger of those two windows."
Why would Inspector Moore state this if it was not so? David also observed that "S. Gouriet Ryan argued in a couple of articles that Bond's report, as we have it, is incomplete." I think this is a possibility, and at least we can say that Dr. Bond was most concerned with the body itself and not as much with the disposition of all the body parts round the room or the ghoulishness of the scene which we can take as read from the horrified descriptions that have come down to us, even if they do not all mention there was flesh hung on nails. He was giving the main facts, not the "decorative" aspects of the scene as it were.... 
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Stephen Thomas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Simon in Los Angeles
Greetings from London. Thanks for your dissertation and the obvious hard work you put in to it. I hope you have not been too disconcerted by the reaction of people on this site. This dissertation and the response it engendered is one of the best things I've seen here for a long time. I had previously thought that that the murder and mutilation took place with the bed against the wall as in the full body photo and the police moved the bed to allow the other photo to be taken. The redoubtable RJ Palmer (my favourite poster here, always elegant and accurate and to the point) quotes contemporary sources to demonstrate that the bed was positioned diagonally in the middle of the room when the murder was discovered. So the photo you are discussing must have been the first one taken and then the bed must have been moved against the wall to allow the the other (full body) one to be taken.
Little Mary Kelly: 'Why are you moving the bed?'
Big Bad Wolf:' All the better to rip you up, my dear.'
I do believe that the shaft of light is indeed light shining through the hinged side of the slightly open door. It's too straight to be anything else. Though I'm an expert photographer I had never considered how these particular photos were obtained. 'Flash bang wallop what a picture' as we say over here is what I thought but you have made me look at them more closely. The one you are discussing would seem to be a long exposure with the light source being from the windows and door judging by the shadows which are facing towards the camera. It's a bit like those men on the Moon photos in 1969 which I must say don't look quite right to me. Light is light and shadows are shadows. A more important consideration for your purpose than the size of Victorian bricks would I think be the focal length of the lens on the camera used by the police. I may be wrong but I would imagine that the lenses would be 'standard' ie equivalent to 50mm on modern 35mm cameras, so the police would have had to move the bed and get the photographer to stand outside the room and take the photograph through the removed window. As an aside may I inform photographically interested readers that a 35mm wide angle lens reproduces the angle of view of the human eye. A 50mm lens reproduces the size of the image as seen by the human eye and and a 135mm lens, though telephoto, accurately reproduces the true perspective of the scene as seen by the human eye. Anyway, lesson over. Simon, thank you very much for that and enjoy your Los Angeles 'winter.' We're due for an Arctic one over here if the forecasters are to be believed. |
Old Jackye
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Im from Argentina, and my grandfather is a child when known a English Man who say he is the ripper. They name are Frederick Stanley and arrive to this country in 1898.
My grandfather are the soon to the employer of Hospital Britanic in Buenos Aires. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1530
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 2:28 am: |
|
Hi,
The elusive Doctor stanley i presume.
Intresting That Buenos Aires crops up was there not a bar called 'Sallys' there around that period allegedly owned by 'Jack' and Sally was a woman that was his partner?.
Richard.
Hmmm. |
