|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Busy Beaver
Detective Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 51
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | 
|
Can anyone find an accurate list of all the items found in MJK's room on the night of her murder? This would be a great help.
Thanks
Busy Beaver  |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 968
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Hi Busy,
Obviously the police at the time would have made an inventory, kellys clothes, and remaining personal belongings, any money remaining in the room etc.
However we poor mortals have not access to such a list, all we have is the basic contents of the room , bed chairs , two tables, a print over the fireplace, mayby a disused washstand.
There are also reports of a oily stove, and a tin bath mayby under the bed.
Richard. |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 9:09 pm: |
|
Inspector Abberline advised that he took an inventory of the contents of the room, but alas it has not survived.
Regards, Jon |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 2:19 am: |
|
G'day,
That's right Jon, Inspector Abberline told the Coroner that he took an inventory of the room's contents, but went no further than describing the ashes he found in the fireplace.
Bruce Paley's book tells of a 'Standard' newspaper report that said: 'The furniture consisted of a bed upon which the body was stretched, which was placed next to a disused washstand in the corner behind the door, and opposite the two windows, in the smaller one of which there were two panes of glass broken. A man's coat was put across there to keep out the draught. Close to the larger wondow stood a table, and another table of smaller size was placed between it and the bed, and it was upon this that the flesh stripped from the body was heaped.'
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 971
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 3:48 am: |
|
Hi,
That report plus the room sketch would seem to confirm that a washstand was present, however the photographs clearly suggest that this item was removed out of camera shot.
The positioning of the washstand would therefore indicate that the bed was not up against the partition as depicted in the photos ,and the bed was pushed up against the partition in order to get a longer shot of the carnage, and the washstand removed elsewhere, also if the bed was not originally up against the partition then both sides of the bed would be accesible, so the murderer would not have had to attack from the door side of the bed as always assumed.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 972
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 4:06 am: |
|
Hi,
It is a great shame that such a important item such as the rooms contents[excluding furnature] did not survive.
I would have like to have known if any money was found in kellys clothing or on the mantlepeice or on the tables, or even on the floor, for it would be surprising if there was none.
For one thing it would show the type of killer the perpretrator was, any money left may have indicated that he had a hatred of prostitutes, and would not touch the wages of sin, any money taken may indicate the class of the offender who would not hesitate to rob the victim if money was scarce.
one wonders why this inventory went missing, the other victims bodily contents appear to have remained intact,
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 5:21 am: |
|
G'day Rich,
To add to what the other newspaper said, the 'Pall Mall Gazette' reported that: 'The only attempts at decoration were a couple of engravings, one "The Fisherman's Widow" stuck over the mantlepiece; while in the corner was an open cupboard, containing a few bits of pottery, some ginger beer bottles, and a bit of bread on a plate.' (thanks Bruce Paley and 'The Simple Truth')
I'd say that there wasn't much else in that tiny room, and it was too soon for investigators to realize just how important it was to note the position of every single item at a murder scene.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 5:26 am: |
|
G'day,
I'd say that if there was any money left loose on the mantlepiece or ON tables, it would have been mentioned at her inquest.
I'ts hard to understand why Abberline never mentioned anything but the fireplace when he answered the Coroner's question. Why did he keep the rest of his inventory to himself?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2718
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 11:01 am: |
|
Hi Richard
I think you may be right about the bed being moved for the photo. If it was in fact possible for the murderer to get round the other side of the bed for the throat-cutting, then this seems to me to bear out the idea that Mary was struggling for her life when she was killed. Jack's normal method seems to me to have been first, strangle the victim; second, place himself on her right side and cut her throat from her left side to her right side. If Jack had managed to strangle Kelly before cutting her throat, and there was space between bed and partition, would he not have placed himself there and cut her throat so that the blood flowed in the direction of the table rather than the partition? So, I tend to think that Jack never managed to strangle Mary, but was forced to cut her throat from the "wrong" side.
Robert |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1253
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 11:24 am: |
|
Robert.
A thought.
Would it be possible to draw the knife over her throat from a position astride her body (or slightly to his left whilst on top of her) ?
The throat cutting senario you discribe seems to suit a cack hander more in my opinion.
Monty
....all good pals and jolly good company !!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2719
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Hi Monty
I can imagine it, but I get stuck half way. I myself am strongly right-handed, so it's difficult for me, but anyway, I can inagine him kneeling on her and stabbing her through the sheet, then using his knife backhand, as it were, and cutting her right side of her throat so that the partition gets splashed. But once the knife gets halfway - below her chin - it seems difficult to imagine it continuing along her left side of her neck. Maybe he either rolled slightly to his right and continued with the backhand stroke, or maybe rolled a bit to his left, and switched to forehand, coming down to meet the previous gash in the middle? Or maybe he just called for new balls.
Something I've just thought of which goes against the struggle scenario, is that the bedclothes look as if they've been rolled, or at least pulled, down - not just picked off the floor and thrown back on the bed. But if Mary was struggling, she'd have been thrashing around and kicking, and those sheets/blankets would have gone anywhere. Those bedclothes look a bit too neat.
The whole thing jiggers me.
Robert |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Evening All
I know we’ve been over this several times in the past but, as I see it, there’s nothing in the 12 Nov. Standard report that is inconsistent with the bed being against the partition wall.
The same report was carried in the Daily Telegraph, 12 Nov. 1888, page 5 as follows:
“The furniture of the room consisted of the bed upon which the body was stretched, which was placed next to a disused washstand in the corner behind the door, and opposite the two windows, in the smaller one of which there were two panes of glass broken. A man’s coat was put across these to keep out the draught. Close to the larger window stood a table, and another table of smaller size was placed between it and the bed, and it was upon this that the flesh stripped from the body was heaped. This article of furniture, when the door was opened, was partly hidden by it. Next to the fireplace was a cupboard.”
In the Daily Telegraph the above report appeared beneath the following plan:
This plan, in which the bed is clearly against the partition wall, suggests that the washstand was positioned between the bottom of the bed and a cupboard which backed on to the fire-place wall in the corner. In conjunction with this plan, the relevant sentence in the above report can be taken to mean that the bed - and not the disused washstand next to which it was placed - was in the corner behind the door, and opposite the two windows. A view which is supported by official accounts of the room, and the main surviving photograph of the scene.
Dr. Bond, 10 Nov. 1888 (Sourcebook p.361) stated: “In the Dorset Street case, he must have attacked from in front and from the left, as there would be no room for him between the wall and that part of the bed on which the woman was lying. Again, the blood had flowed down on the right side of the woman and spurted on to the wall.”
If the washstand had been between the partition wall and the bed, the murderer would have been able to get between the wall and the bed, but unable to get between the washstand and the bed. The blood, of course, would then have spurted on to the wall and the washstand.
Then, of course, we have Dr. Phillips’ inquest testimony (Sourcebook p.374): “On the door being opened it knocked against a table, the table I found close to the left-hand side of the bedstead and the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition”
Given the absence of the table by the bed, against which the door banged on opening, in this one important detail at least the notable ‘washstand sketch’ is certainly inaccurate. The artist also seems to have neglected to include the cupboard next to the fireplace. Both table and cupboard were still present when the inquest jury viewed the room on 12 Nov., as reported in the Pall Mall Gazette of that date, page 8:
“The inspector, holding a candle stuck in a bottle, stood at the head of the filthy, blood-stained bed, and repeated the horrible details with appalling minuteness. He indicated with one hand the bloodstains on the wall, and pointed with the other to the pools which had ebbed out on to the mattress. The little table was still on the left of the bedstead, which occupied the larger portion of the room. A farthing dip in a bottle did not serve to illuminate the fearful gloom, but I was able to see what a wretched hole the poor murdered woman called “home.” The only attempts at decoration were a couple of engravings, one, “The Fisherman’s Widow,” stuck over the mantelpiece; while in the corner was an open cupboard, containing a few bits of pottery, some ginger-beer bottles, and a bit of bread on a plate.”
So, as I see it, the sketch showing the washstand between the wall and the bed is almost certainly inaccurate, probably based on a misinterpretation of the reported contents of the room.
Best wishes
alex
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 170
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Hi Alex,
I agree with everything you said. We have photos of important parts of the room, we have a number of good descriptions, and we have reports that match those details. An artist's rendition shouldn't be elevated to a supposedly accurate depiction of the room with no supporting evidence.
Heck, based upon the size of the room and what all had to fit on the wall with the door, common sense tells us the bed had to have been in the corner or else it wouldn't have even fit in the available space. Sometimes I see people trying to diagram the room out and making it almost larger than my whole apartment. I don't know if they are confusing the measurements in feet for measurements in meters or what.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2722
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 6:02 pm: |
|
Washstand aside for the moment, does anyone feel, as I do, that the photo of Kelly was taken after the bed had been moved forwards? It just doesn't look right to me.
Robert |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 7:35 pm: |
|
Thanks Dan. Needless to say I heartily concur with the points you raise.
Robert, I can see that the lines on the wall above and behind the headboard appear to throw the whole scene out of perspective, if the bed is flush against both walls.
I’m not sure how to read this, but can’t see any reason why the bed would have been moved, while retaining its proximity to the bedside table, to take this photo.
Perhaps it is simply the stained walls distorting the photographic perspective. Perhaps, given the DIY nature of the division of this room, it is inevitable that the walls were neither flush nor met at a right angle. I don’t know. Worth considering nonetheless.
Best Wishes
alex
|
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 351
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 9:18 pm: |
|
Hi, Robert
Instead of the bed being moved forward, it looks to me as if the table has been pushed back against the bed. Of course I have no sense of perspective, but that would make sense if the opening door kept hitting it amid heavy traffic coming in and out. If the bed had been moved away from the wall, would the tub, or whatever that is underneath the bed, be where we see it?
Sorry if this has been raised before.
Cheers,
Dave |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 123
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 11:28 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I've stated this before but I see no evidence for any of the furniture being moved. The sketch as Alex states is horribly inaccurate. The first noticeable thing is that the scale is completely wrong, it gives the impression of a fairly spacious room, not the 10 to 12 foot square room it supposedly was. Measure one of the bedrooms in your house and you'll get an idea how small this room really was. Once you have an actual room to refer to, the sketch is put in to perspective and can be clearly seen as flawed.
From my time working on film sets and dealing with photography I know that sometimes what can end up on film is not what you might expect. Unless you are the person looking through the lens it is almost impossible to say what might appear in the background of a shot. This is why I believe all of the speculation regarding furniture movement is wrong. An example of this is the speculation of the light through the hinged edge of the door on the second photograph. Many people feel that the location of the door jamb is wrong and indicates that the bed was moved. I disagree, the jamb is almost exactly where I would expect it to be if the camera was placed on top of the pile of cloth we see on the foot of the bed in the first photograph.
I have yet to read the article on the crime scene photographer which I believe was recently made available on casebook, but I will read it soon. I would speculate that it may not have been necessary for the photographer to peer through the camera as we do today. I doubt that the camera was a single lens reflex and therefore any view through the camera would have only afforded an approximation of what would end up on film anyway. If the photographer did not need to stand behind the camera then there was no need to move the bed.
Alex, I saw a colourized, cleaned up version of the first Kelly photograph somewhere on casebook and whilst it was someone's interpretation of the scene it allayed a few doubts I had in my mind regarding the position of the bed. It does seem at the very least that the bed does not butt up against the wall at the top of the bed. Not sure if it is an illusion or not.
Scotty.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 974
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 3:49 am: |
|
Hi,
I cannot argue with the fine points made here, however I still in my own mind feel that the washstand was against the partition near the top of the bed, and the bed was that distance away from the wall, therefore in order to get the best shot from the window the washstand was removed out of shot, and the bed pushed up against the partition, the tin bath?would therefore have been pushed under the bed as it would have then been then out in the open.
I do feel that we tend to imagine a bigger area then was present, but my main argument is 'When the sketch was made , why would the drawer put the washstand up against the top of the room , if it was down further beyond the bed?.
saying that it is true that he omitted the cupboard.
The mystery continues.
Richard. |
joanna lenington
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 9:55 am: |
|
Hi Richard and everybody!
I still want to comment on that time of death. I think it would have been quite incautious for the killer to do his "work" at around 9am and then walk among the people in horribly bloody clothes... Didn't the police and doctor Bond think that Mary Jane had been dead already in the morning? I'm quite sure police and specially Abberline were on the opinion that mr.Lewis and ms.Maxwell had been mistaken about them seeing Mary Kelly in the morning of November 9th. And Patricia Corwell writes in her book that according to "stiffness" of the body she defenately had died at night time.
Wel, everybody has their right to own opinion but still they should consider every proved truth.
/love
Joanna |
Simon Owen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 6:58 pm: |
|
If the bed wasn't moved , how did they take the 2nd Kelly murder photograph ? |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1264
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:11 am: |
|
Duplicate, double post...ignore, take no notice, clear orf...there is nothing to see here !
(Message edited by monty on July 20, 2004)
No, you cant have one extra on the leg side...but you can have five !
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1265
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 11:13 am: |
|
Simon,
Me too mate....me too.
Ive always thought the bed was moved to take the photo of Marys table.
Monty
No, you cant have one extra on the leg side...but you can have five !
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 423
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Joanna,
Incautious maybe, improbable maybe, impossible? Not at all. As a matter of daily life butchers and others working around meat walked around all day with blood all over them. Personally, I don't think that Mary was killed in the mid morning hours.
Mikey |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 113
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Gents.
As it happens, due to the generosity of Stewart, I have an enlarged print (8"x11") of the 'body-on-bed' photo and to me there appears a slight inconsistancy with the smaller 'thigh' photo.
If, as has been suggested, the smaller photo was taken by placing the camera on top of the folded bedding(?) by the right knee, then I see in the 'body-on-bed' photo a tenuous trajectory from the top of the folded bedding - to the highpoint of her left knee - to the corner of the small table.
In fact it is possible that the corner is slightly to the left of the presumed trajectory.
Now, looking at the smaller 'thigh' photo we see the table clearly behind the highpoint of her left knee, the corner then is some distance off picture to the right, out of view.
Like I said this is tenuous and only speculative because of light & shadows, etc. but I think this suggests that the small table has been pulled forward away from the bed and the foot-end of the bed may have been pulled away from the partition at a slight angle, just sufficient to either take the 'thigh' photo, or at least place the camera on the folded bedding.
Speculative?, yes, but I think there is too much of the table visible in the 'thigh' photo for it to have remained in-situ as seen in the 'body-on-bed' photo.
Why take such an obscure photo from such a difficult angle?
I suspect several photo's were taken from various angles around the body, of which we only have one overall picture and one 'thigh' picture, the rest must be either temporary or permanently 'lost'.
Walter Dew, in his 'Memoirs', (The Hunt for Jack the Ripper), tells us that several photo's were taken of the eyes of the corpse, so quite likely many pictures were taken that afternoon. Afterall, they were there some time I believe.
Regards, Jon |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 172
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Hi Richard,
You asked:
"When the sketch was made , why would the drawer put the washstand up against the top of the room, if it was down further beyond the bed?."
By the same token, we might as well ask why the various illustrators drawing MJK made her wear a hat, or had doctors crowded around her bed at all angles as if it were in the center of the room, or (as in the Illustrated Police News portrait) made someone who was by all accounts an attractive young woman look like a cave troll.
The answer being that artists sometimes use artistic license and make things up as they go along.
But then if you are going to try to argue for the authenticity of this one drawing by asking why someone would draw it that way if it were wrong, that argument could just as easily be made for the diagrams that place the washstand away from the bed. The only way you can argue that the info must be right because it's in a drawing is if all the drawings show the same thing, and they don't.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 173
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Hi Jon,
You said:
"Now, looking at the smaller 'thigh' photo we see the table clearly behind the highpoint of her left knee"
Ah, but I don't think that's necessarily her knee in the photo. We've been around and around the issue on the MJK photos threads, and some of us think that part is bunched up bedcloth. I've posted diagrams in a couple places trying to triangulate the items in common in both photos. As far as I can tell, the bed and table were not moved between shots, and a number of items line up pretty well to show that.
"Why take such an obscure photo from such a difficult angle?"
Well, for one thing, to show the flesh on the table. For another, I believe it was specifically chosen to show not only the flesh that was cut off but also where it was cut from, as those are the two most conspicuous details I can see.
I also don't think the angle is as difficult as some people make it out to be. The photo is of a smaller size than the full body shot, implying that it was from a smaller sized camera. Many of these had a little reflecting mirror so you could look down from the top (instead of from behind) in order to see what all was going to be in the frame. If that were true, it'd be trivial to just set it on the cloth on the bed and snap the shot.
"Walter Dew, in his 'Memoirs', (The Hunt for Jack the Ripper), tells us that several photo's were taken of the eyes of the corpse"
I'm rather skeptical of Dew's accounts. He seems to be telling a good tale instead of accurately representing what happened that day. If anyone took pics of her eyes, they were doing it on their own initiative and not based upon what doctors requested. But, either way, it's certainly possible that there were more photos taken than what we currently have access to.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Dan, you commented..
"I'm rather skeptical of Dew's accounts. He seems to be telling a good tale instead of accurately representing what happened that day. If anyone took pics of her eyes, they were doing it on their own initiative and not based upon what doctors requested.".
Certainly, all the officials writing so long after the case are bound to enrich the tale with some colourful exaggeration. This though is no reason to suggest Dew's comment was made up, afterall, Coroner Baxter following the Chapman murder had suggested as much in asking if the eyes had been photographed.
The story then does have some contemporary support, regardless how futile it really was. Once the comment had been made, especially by a Coroner, and a vocal Coroner at that, the police would have been required to take some steps in that direction, imagine the outcry if they hadn't.
Regardless, I mentioned that point only to ellaborate that there appears to be good reason to accept some considerable time was spent in the room taking a variety of photographs.
As for what the doctors requested....we have no idea what they requested. It is not professional etiquette for Doctors to tell the press such details and beside's, Bond's report is a summary, it is not the actual postmortem report.
Bond's summary is too brief, for a good example of how detailed a postmortem report had to be we have the one for Alice McKenzie, very methodical, step by step, very detailed.
regards, Jon |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 975
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Hi,
I agree with Simon, if the bed was not moved'How did they take the second photograph'?.
It is clear that some positioning of the room was changed considering the photography avaiiable at the time, one point i want to mention[ hopefully relevant[ is if the bed was right up against the partition then clearly if two people shared the bed, ie. Kelly and Barnett then there would have been only one side [ nearest the door] accesible to both parties.therefore one would have imaginged that kelly would have got in first followed by Barnett, simply because as the breadwinner so to speak, he would have vacated the room early morning in his working occupation, and therefore to leave the bed without unduely rousing kelly that would have been the obvious plan.
To be more specific, to me it would have been more practicle to have had access to both sides of the bed, so that if Barnett wished to leave both sides of the bed ] he could].
This specualtion has proberly nothing to do with this thread, but i would put good money on that the male figure of a relationship, would prefer to sleep on the right of a partner, than the left, for from my own humble experience, even the art of kissing is far easier from the right of a partner than the left[ plus the making love aspect ].
So to finalize I would suggest that both sides of the bed were accessible to both parties, and if i could take a guess then Barnett slept on the side nearest the partition.
Unless relevant statistics can prove the opposite.
Regards Richard. |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 127
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Richard, have no statistics at hand but I am sure someone has done such a study. Space, it's all about space. If we calculate all of the items along the wall with the door in it this is what we come up with. Bed 4 feet wide. Table 1.5 feet wide. Door 3 feet wide. A total of 8.5 feet. It is possible that the table and the door overlapped of course but assuming they did not, in a 12 foot x 12 foot room that only leaves 3.5 feet spare. Add in a gap between the corner of the room and where the door begins (possibly 1 foot from the external photo) and possibly a small gap between the bed and table and there is very little space left along this wall, about 2 feet. And that assumes that the room was 12 feet square, in some reports it is not that large. What I am saying is that while if two people were to sleep together in the bed it may have been practical to pull it away from the wall for easy access, other factors to do with available space would almost certainly have prevented this.
Why must the bed have been moved to take the second photograph?
I don't understand why this is necessary. As I stated earlier, it is unlikely that the photographer needed to stand behind the camera, he probably simply placed the camera on the material on the bottom of the bed nearest the wall. In film a common camera holding device is known as a saddle bag, it's basically a bean bag which you press the camera onto in various situations, especially those where the camera is too low for a tripod to be of use. So it is not necessary to even place a tripod behind the bed let alone a photographer. The bottom of the second angle photograph is fuzzy and out of focus, just as items close to the camera would be from such an extreme close angle.
With regards the photos of the eyes, I have floated this elsewhere but had no nibbles. Many years ago I saw a documentary on the ripper which was based on Stephen Knights book. At one point in the doco there was a series of photographs I think (it's a long time ago) including the first angle MJK photo. One of the pictures I couldn't make out until I heard the reference to photographing the victim's eyes. It was then I realised that what I was looking at was an extreme close-up of a human eye. Anyone know the origin of that photo?
Joanna I'm with you on time of death, but I would say that as Mikey points out, blood on people was not an uncommon sight. Also that the fact that the doctor's were not permitted into the room for some period of hours after the discovery of the body has possibly meant that some useful information which could have been gathered was not. I still believe a time of death before daylight but there are other factors to consider.
Scotty.
|
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 115
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 11:44 am: |
|
Scotty.
Can you verify that such a remote operated camera was available at that time.
It might be that my memory is kaput but I don't recall anyone ever suggesting such a model in 1888.
Thanks, Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 990
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Hi Jon
Good to see you on the boards!
Suzi x |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 132
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 1:55 am: |
|
Hi Jon,
I don't think the camera was a "remote" camera as such just that it was able to be used without a tripod. I did a little searching for cameras last week and it seems possible. The limiting feature with the sort of cameras likely to be used were that they had no film but rather glass plates which needed to be developed within a reasonable time frame after exposure. The cameras themselves were not particularly heavy or cumbersome from what I can tell. Most cameras of that vintage needed to be untouched during exposure otherwise a shaking effect would appear on the plate as exposure times were fairly long. It is possible that in MjK's room the shots we see might have had to be exposed for a period of minutes to actually gain correct exposure. Clearly the photographer would not be able to touch the camera during this period.
I belive it was mentioned earlier that some cameras of this vintage actually required the photographer to view the shot through the top of the camera and this technique might have been employed for the second shot. I don't see it as necessary though. I think it is entirely possible that an experienced photographer could place the camera on the material on the bottom of the bed nearest the wall and take a shot of MJK's mutilations based purely on his understanding of his profession. He would be able to set focal length using a tape measure, he would have a pretty good idea what would appear in the frame from his knowledge of the lens he was using. Another advantage is that he could send an assistant quickly off to develop some plates to see if he had captured what he wanted, if not he could reshoot. As I stated, the plates had to be developed pretty soon after exposure anyway.
Hope that helps explain me a bit better. I just don't see why anything would have to be moved for the photographer.
Scotty.
|
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:03 am: |
|
Hi Suzi.
Well thank you, thats very nice.
Is this the Casebook Welcoming Committee, or the Pompey Hospitality Club?
I don't have to go through any initiation ceremony do I?, I mean I don't think some of my body parts would stand it, and my sanity leaves alot to be desired.
(Hmm, maybe I was meant to be here)
Catch'ya later, Jon
(Message edited by Jon on July 27, 2004) |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:10 am: |
|
Hello Scott.
Back on the CD Casebook there is a thread on Photography, I posted several lengthy bits of photographic history but at the time we were discussing whether the flash was used at Millers Court, whether it was even available at all.
Your type of camera may have got a mention, I can't remember.
Regards, Jon |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 142
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:59 pm: |
|
Thanks for that Jon,
What was decided on a flash? Do you remember?
Can't decide myself. The wide angle doesn't show any evidence of flash use that I can see but I am not well versed with flash techniques in 1888 London. I can't see that a flash would have been used in the second photograph, the distance between the flash and the subject would have been too short.
Scotty.
|
Nicholas Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Added to the list of 'items' found in Mary's room, from memory I think there was a body and body bits lying around the place.
G'day Jon, it's been a while mate. As for the canera stuff, I remember reading somewhere that the bed had to be moved so that the second photo could be taken. If that was true then wouldn't it mean that a tripod of sorts had to be used rather than a hand held camera.
If that was the case then I'm certain a flash would have had to have been used.
I'm sorry mate, but I've been away from these boards for a while and have a lot of catching up to do.
Take care mate.
Jules |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 594
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Jules,
The lack of any dark, harsh shadows stongly suggests it was a time exposure and not a flash powder used for the photographs. In any case, a tripod would most assuredly have been used.
Don.
(Message edited by supe on June 07, 2005)
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Nicholas Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
G'day Don.
Thanks for that. Once again my posts have seemed to have gone astray. As for the Goulston St griffitti would they have used a tripod camera for that photo or did the have hand held caneras back then?
Please excuse my ignorance.
Jules |
Nicholas Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Thanks for that Don, but anothewr question for you, would they have used a tripod to photograph the Goulston st griffitti? or a hand held job? I'm unfamiliar with what caneras were available back in those days.
Sincerely
Jules |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 611
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
Jules,
What ignorance? Anyhow, I would suspect that it would have been on a tripod. There were some hand-held cameras, but they would want the best image possible and the emulsion was so slow on the glass plates that it would have required an exposure for a much greater length of time than anyone could be expected to hold a camera steady.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Nicholas Smith
Police Constable
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 7
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
G'day Don, pleased to meet you if we haven't met before.
The reason I asked about the Goulston St photo was because Arnold (by authorisation of Warren) Had it removed.
I was wondering if they did have hand held cameras in which case it would have been reletively easy to have taken a photo.
If, however, they had to wait for a tripod and camera to be brought in, then that certainly would have been a cause of concern.
What with the drama's going on in Whitechapel the sight of a camera on a tripod would have been bound to attract attention. However, a small instamatic or disposable would have not in the least received the slightest bit of attention.
Once again we have been duped with vital information. Thanks Mr Warren.
Sincerely
Diddles |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page