| Author |
Message |
    
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2661
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 9:02 am: |       |
Re: Tin Bath
Comments have been made before about the existence of a tin bath in Kelly's room. Although this photograph is not the optimal one to show it, you can distinctly see something in the bottom-left corner, beneath the bed, that could have the appearance of a tin bath. It would seem reasonable to me, considering the lack of running water in the room, that there would be some sort of tub, bath or bucket for Kelly to wash up with.
I'm not sure if Stewart or any of the better informed can clear up the identity of this object.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Christopher T George
Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 10:26 am: | |
Hi, Stephen:
My interpretation of that photograph of Kelly's room is that indeed the object below the bed appears to be a tin bath.
Best regards
Chris George |
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 11:17 am: | |
It does look like a tin bath to me.
Many thanks to Stephen for posting the photograph, and the information! |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 46
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
Hi everyone.
I think we can safely assume that Kelly had a tin bath in her room, something I was blissfully unaware of.
The picture shows it pushed under the bed, yet Mr Masters says he has a picture of it out in the room containing portions of kellys body.
Explanation for this is properly once pictures were taken it was pushed under the bed, out of sight, for the pictures that we know are shocking enough, without more horror being on show.
I am begining to believe the horror that went on in that room is far worse then we have realized, the observation in some reports that bits of the body were strewn all around the room mayby more like the truth..
Mr Masters we await in anticipation, and I hope we dont all have nightmares.
Regards Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 12:16 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
Historical research may not mention a bath , but it does appear that there is one under the bed, which would seem the logical place for Kelly to store it , in a room of that size.
I am not prejudging, yet is it not possible that Mr Masters observed this object , something that a lot of board members had not been aware of, rather like the letters FM on kellys wall, that had not been spotted till recent years, and is using this along with other points to get us all in a talkative frenzy...
I am not being disrespectful Mr Masters, but if only you could feed us just a few more tit bits while we await the scanner,we would become less impatient and more acceptable of your claim, for at the moment its a bit like being a child who has to wait to open the xmas present of his dreams..
Regards Richard. |
Neal Shelden
Sergeant
Username: Neal
Post Number: 13
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 12:25 pm: | |
I'm probably not right in this, but could the object that looks like a tin bath on the picture really be the back of a chair just in the foreground? It seems to go down slightly further on it's right side than where the level of the floor under the bed would be? |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 12:34 pm: | |
Hi Neal.
I can see your point ,if you look at the picture you could argue that.
However if it is a chair or stool , only a dwarf would feel comftable sitting on that peice of furnature judging from the height
Experts please........
Regards Richard. |
Christopher T George
Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 12:38 pm: | |
Hi, Neal:
Your idea that the object that appears to be under the bed could actually be the back of a chair close to the camera that perspective only gives us the idea that it is some object under the bed, might be so. However, to my eye, the top left and right corners of what you say may be the chair back, appear to go under the bed rather than overlap it, so to my mind the object, probably a tin bath tub, is under the bed not the back of a chair. Thanks though for bringing up that possibility, Neal! Just one more thing to puzzle over in this perplexing case!
All the best
Chris |
Kevin Braun
Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 12:59 pm: | |
"Is that a tin bath(?)", was debated on several threads of the old Casebook message boards. It does appear to be a tin bath, stored under the bed. Makes sense. But Neal's got me thinking. That could be a chair in the foreground. The left side of the object looks to extend slightly above the base of the bed. Is there any space between the bed and the floor?
If it is a tin bath, why is it omitted from "a most careful note... of the contents of MJK's room." The police included items as small as a clay pipe and candle. Perhaps when taking the second known photograph of the body, the bed was moved from the wall totally covering the bath. The inventory was then taken and bath was missed because it was no longer in view. Endless speculation, I know, sorry.
Take care,
Kevin |
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 34
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 7:32 pm: | |
Maybe the bath was excluded from the inventory because it was brought in for the purpose -- er -- described by Mr. Masters? And pushed under the bed for the taking of the picture? |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2665
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 7:37 pm: | |
I'm working from memory here, but I believe I remembered reading that the "traditional" Kelly photograph was taken through the window of the room, because the door was still locked at that time. If that's true, then we can assume that the items we see in the photo were as they were when the Ripper left the room.
Can anyone confirm or deny my ramblings? 
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
David O'Flaherty
Sergeant
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 9:00 pm: | |
I can't help with the window story, but I found this in my copy of Evans & Skinner's Companion. I don't know how accurate the story is, but the The Daily Telegraph of 10 November seems to say the photograph was taken after the door was forced but before anything was disturbed. There's also a contemporary sketch showing the photographer inside the room.
Then again, the artist's portrayal of Kelly is off, so maybe he got it wrong about the photographer being inside, too. The Telegraph mentions that the press were kept out of the Court, so I don't know where the sketch comes from.
Maybe this was covered in the Casebook archives?
Hope that's helpful,
Dave
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2669
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 12:15 am: | |
While performing hi-res scans of the Kelly photo for another thread, I noticed something I hadn't before - there is the distinct shape of what I can only describe as a "handle" on the item stored beneath Kelly's bed. With this in mind I believe it is almost certain that this was a tin bath.
In relation to previous discussion about this possibly being a chair, it is apparent from this hi-res scan that the item does indeed travel beneath the the boxspring of Kelly's bed.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Neal Shelden
Sergeant
Username: Neal
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 3:10 pm: | |
Could it be that the tin bath was being used to support the bottom of the bed? On the picture it doesn't look as if there's much, if any, space between the two?
I remember putting a small stall under the bottom of my bed years ago when one of the legs fell off?
Just a thought. |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2673
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 5:42 pm: | |
Hi Neal -
I suppose that's a possibility, since as you say there is minimal (if any) space between the bottom of the bed and the rim of the tub. But I wonder if a tub would be able to support the weight of a bed and two people? Also if I were supporting my bed in this manner I would likely turn the tub upside down first, otherwise there would be extreme force on the edges that would likely bend or collapse it inward straight away.
But anything is possible!
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Neal Shelden
Sergeant
Username: Neal
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 2:43 pm: | |
Hi Stephen,
Yes, I guess that would be right. But there is an old picture that I've got of one of my family which shows a tin bath in the background. It's smaller at the base than at the rim. Maybe MJK tried the tub both ways under the bed, and thought that way was the best.
Perhaps the reason for her making a noise in the early hours was less to do with her murderer, than the leg on her bed falling off  |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 177
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 11:59 am: | |
Has anyone noticed what appears to be a white (chalk?) drawing on the bedframe just above the "tin bath?" In the regular sized photo it looks triangular, like an upper case "A." In the enlargement is looks rather cat-like, with a face and pointed ears (or is it a horned devil?). I doubt that it has any significance or the police would have taken note of it. But it is interesting.
Andy
|
Steven Atkins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 12:44 pm: | |
Hi Andrew,
I believe the "Horned devil" is just a scratch on the photograph.
The main reason being that it is perfectly white.Every other part of the photo'is a shade of sepia and never white.
Best regards,
Steven |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 182
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 1:12 pm: | |
Steven,
I think you are most probably correct. Yet it is worth remembering that if it were a chalk drawing it might appear as perfectly white in the photograph in contrast to the remainder of the filthy room in which nothing was white.
But the police would surely have noted it. I do believe it looks more cat-like, anyway!
Andy
|
Marie Jeanette Kelly
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 4:07 am: | |
I dont see a tin bath being situated under the bed being anything out of the usual. It was after all common for tin baths to be kept under the bed in the 1800's was it not? |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 252
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
Hey Spry -
Yeah, I always thought that was a symbol, not a handle. Like from the manufacturer. Though, it very well might be a handle. I've got a few feelers out there, no responses just yet. Glad to see someone else is looking in the same direction I am :P
Any information on the photographer and the actual taking of the pictures would be greatly appreciated. I'm not so certain that this one was taken through a window. That however, probably has to do with the fact that I know next to nothing about photography back then, something I wish to remedy soon.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 11
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 9:21 am: | |
I too would love some info on the photographer and the techniques employed as I think it would lend some insight into the two photographs we have of this scene. I seem to recall that such an article has been mentioned here on the boards but I can't rediscover it. I can however state for certain that the proposed chalk drawing on the base of the bed does not actually exist. As I have explained recently on a different thread there are two copies of this photo in existance. The one Stephen has used here is the 2nd one, the first one is reproduced in full (uncropped) in earlier printings of Donald Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack The Ripper". As can be seen below it shows no white mark, so that mark must be something foreign on the second print only.
Anyway, getting back to the original thread, it sure looks like a tin tub to me.
Scotty. |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 104
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 1:25 pm: | |
Hi Scott,
Ripper Notes had an article discussing the photographer. It's not one of the ones reproduced here on this website, but from what I recall it didn't go into techniques at all.
Good spot on the figure not appearing on the MJK1 photo. I had mentioned elsewhere here (on a "it's the devil drawing and Sickert put it there!" thread) that I thought the coloration meant it was some defect like the tear across the picture but that it could have been carved into the wood (maybe from the tin tub scraping against it). Looks like it's confirmed as insignificant now.
I tried blowing up your graphic to see if possibly the mark existed in that shot but not as visible (which was unlikely as MJK1 has more contrast than MJK2 so should have been more obvious even if it were there), but it clearly doesn't.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
kathryn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 9:51 am: | |
i really don't understand what the big deal is, if she did have a tin bath, how could that connect to anything, or why whould that be important? i think it has no connection to jack the ripper or anything like that.
kat |
Marie Jeanette Kelly
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 5:55 am: | |
It was normal for a bath to be under peoples bed in the victorian times. I dont see the big thing about it either! |
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 5:24 pm: | |
The photo i have in my collection does show a white mark on the bed, i have read Donald Rumbelow's book, but didn't notice one from the other, maybe the 2nd photo just was more sensitive with modern photography, don't know for sure though....the white mark looked to me to be a repair of a crack in the bed and the tin bath was placed there to help support it. I do think that it is a tin bath and not a chair, Stephen is right as i recall looking at another photo (one that isn't in my collection), and noticing that it was a handle and thinking that the object was too wide at the rim to be a bucket. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 131
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 1:37 am: | |
Hi Shelley,
As I posted above there are two copies of this photograph available and the white mark clearly does not appear on one (it's in both my versions of Rumbelow's book). The white mark therefore appears to be a discolouration of some sort on one of the versions of the photo rather that something that was a feature of the bed. (See my close up above).
Hope this helps.
Scotty. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 996
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | |
Hi all
For what its worth.... thinking about Mary and the room etc etc I feel that a tin bath under the bed would be a very good idea indeed...for obvious reasons and also for washing clothes maybe to be dried in front of the fire etc etc .There was a pump as we know (!) in the court and to heat a 'bath' of water by moving it in front of the fire is not without the bounds of possibility..............IF the fire was even just lit then a bath left in front of it would at least be 'off-cold 'which would be better and warmer than coming into that room on a cold wet night and may have provided a) a chance to swill out some articles of clothing and b) some comfort for warming and even maybe sore feet!!!
Cheers
Suzi
|
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 1:30 am: | |
Hi Scott,
Taking another look at the close up above...and actually studying it properly, i see what you mean, the formation seems to go round like the outline of a head and 2 blobs are visible, i guess this isn't the standard formation of a natural crack,i'm not a Detective like you..you've all got keen sharp eye's haven't you!...i swear it's not fair why can't i have a pair of peeper's like you lot? Anyway if you see the photo at a distance and not close up, it does have the appearance of a crack, but with the close up i'd say you were correct. Mary Kelly was lucky to have a tin bath, quite handy for washing oneself and also clothing, maybe she even washed other people's clothes to earn a bit of cash, like the childrens clothes that were found in her room etc. As to the discolouration in the photo what was that 'F.M' all about in the background near Kelly's bed? because i haven't seen it on any photo's myself, is it discolouration or just a hoax? The inital's F.M i saw on TV, the Diary that was supposed to be the ripper's in the name of Maybrick...The diary i disgarded years ago as having any authenticity at all. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 141
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:54 pm: | |
Hi Shelley,
I will post later with a clear comparison of the two different prints of this photograph, just to make it all clear.
With regards the FM written in blood on the wall, most people are agreed that they can find at least one letter. If you have a look at this LINK, you will find a full discussion on the letters and where to find them. Also on this page is a link to a very large version of the wide angle crime scene photo. Personally I believe them to be blood streaks on the wall created when the throat was cut. But hey, that's just me.
Scotty. |
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 10:20 pm: | |
Hi scott, thanks for the link...i did get a good look at the HUGE photo, i think your'e right about the bloodstaining of the F.M, but i don't think its altogether blood forming the letters, the partition is heavily stained with damp i would think, so i reckon, it's a mixture of blood and damp stains, it's just coincidence that a different size of photo would happen to show up an F.M, and in other different sized photos a F.M isn't defined. I rather thought that concerning the 'Diary' when it was mentioned (i think on the T.V programme ), that the killer wrote with his finger in blood the F.M to be very far fetched and extremely dramatic, especially in view of a serial killer! ( more like a full scale drama of a hollywood movie or play at a theatre). Whada think?... possible? |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 6:23 pm: | |
Hi Shelley
Yes that photo's great isnt it..FM!!!!!!! I'm sorry I just dont accept that!!!....wishful thinking maybe for the Maybrickites!
The wall behind the bed I feel was a partition made up of panelling...hardly new and basically covered in God knows what... blood stains ok ..mostly from our Mary but who knows what other horrors.......but FM???...sorry no dont buy it
Cheers
Suzi
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 42
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 2:05 pm: | |
Hi Suzi
Thanks for the post, but..........what the h**l are u on about?.....by the way how was mars this season red, red or just red ?
Is it me that needs glasses, or a lot of other people on this forum as well as off this forum.
Anticipating....Bewildered! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 4:13 pm: | |
Shelley... Hi!
All I was saying is that 'wall' behind Marys bed was made up of some partioning .old doors etc etc ......NOT a real wall shall we say...Covered in staining from many possible previous occupants etc etc .Maybe someone had the wit(!) to scribble a FM on the wall but I doubt it!
Suzi
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 46
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 5:53 am: | |
Hi Suzi,
In the first instance, i believe the Maybrick diary to be a hoax and forgery. The second is look closely at both the small sized photo and the blown up size too you will be able to see that the partitioning is a whole piece and not a jigsaw of partitioning, of different parts, noone wrote with their finger in blood or any other substance the letters F.M, it just happens to be a fluke of staining and discoluration.
Look at the photos again, hope this helps.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 6:18 am: | |
Hi Shelley,
Looking again at the picture I still feel that the partition is made up of several sections but agree that the writing on the wall is to say the least spurious
Cheers
Suzi |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 59
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 9:20 am: | |
Hi Suzi,
I cannot see anything to indicate several pieces of partition, there is however the general design of a box of beading, like a picture frame if you like....If there were several pieces of parition it would show up in dark shading, and it doesn't, i can agree however that numerous parts of discolouration through other substances than damp or blood could attribute to a particular size of photo showing up what can be seen as an 'F.M.'
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
