|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through June 14, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Developement of Photography:
Archive through June 14, 2001
Author: Robert Maloney
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 09:10 am |        | Judith,
Joseph Isaacs WAS one of the killers.
The Vigilance Committee DID attempt to extort money from the people and government of England. And the inability to figure any of this out is not something I would boast about.
Rob |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 11:48 am | | Dear Bob,
"Gently levered it open with little damage".?
I write this reply from the Tower of London... since I have just renovated the INTERNAL doors in this cottage c.1889 all with the standard locks and keys of that period.
I don't think they had IKEA in those days, Bob :-)
Rosey. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 12:25 pm | | Dear Bob,
The Complete Book of Locks & Locksmithing.C.A. Roper....explains with diagrams, the reason why the average length of a 19th century steel warded key-shank is three inches. The key-shank is that piece between the key-collar/throat and the bow.
Rosey:-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 01:44 pm | | Dear Ivor,
When Georgie Boy needed someone to bug the Chief...who was then, a suspect for the Northern
Ripper...he chose
Incidentally the prison I named does not have cells...a "Category C" prison.
Rosey,The Goirl with the Toirl :-) |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 06:21 pm | | If you want to see the main Kelly photo inverted then it appears that way in Bill Wadell's book ' The Black Museum ' although its quite small.
If , lets speculate , the Kelly photograph is the wrong way round then does that mean that Kelly's bed was situated along the outside wall of the room , behind the door ?
If so , how was the second photograph taken ? |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 09:04 pm | | If the Kelly photograph is inverted, why does the photograph as we know it conform to the plan that was published at the time? Methinks Jacunius knows not what he says.
Chris |
Author: Judith Stock
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 09:29 pm | | Dear CG, Jon and Bob Hinton,
Cheers to you, and good wishes. As you may have already guessed, the mere existence of things like Jacunius and Robert Maloney are the reason I don't post much anymore; I responded to Jacunius' post out of sheer frustration, and am THEN confronted with that tripe from Maloney. That type of response, I suppose, is to be expected, considering the poster.
I can't even waste the time to dignify the Maloney post with a response; CG has, I think, well and truly answered Jacunius, and Bob and Jon can carry on without any assistance from me. Luck to you......
Bob, I hope to see you in Bournemouth, along with CG.
Judy |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 10:33 pm | | I suppose that it is quite possible that many pictures that used the glass negative process may have been printed in reverse but the Kelly crime scene is not one of them. If your evidence is that "some" of the newspaper illustrations show Kelly's bed reversed, I would answer with, which newspapers are you talking about? I personally know of only one illustration that shows the bed in reverse, that of The Illustrated Police News, No.1,292, Saturday 17 November, 1888, which, in another illustration, also shows the bed the right way. This is no reason to suppose that all else are wrong. The Daily Telegraph of 12 November even printed a plan showing the interior of Kelly's room which shows the bed in the corner of the room across from the small set of windows and just to the right of the door which we know to be true from, among other things, Dr Phillips's inquest testimony. Far from being "vague", as you claim, Dr Phillips offers us crystal clarity in his description:
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, the mutilated remains of a female were lying two thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest to the door of entry...
Since we know the size of the room, which wall was the partition wall, the position of the windows and door and where the body lay in relation to them, it is impossible for the Kelly photograph to be reversed. As for the tale of the window being removed in order for the photograph to be taken, others have already answered that. The window was not removed.
Wolf. |
Author: Corky Witherspoon
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 11:53 pm | | | Hello all! Check out my photo. I feel twenty years younger. The shark oil must have kicked in! |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 04:34 am | | Wolf and "wolf",
Bodily alignment due East-West. Window forced open...not "removed".
Rosey :-) |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 06:20 am | | Dear Rosey,
Let me get this straight are you saying that the doors of this period were between 2 1/2" and 2 3/4" thick? I have never come across a normal door this thick.
I am not familiar with the book you mention but do have copies of locksmithing catalogues of the age which quite clearly show the locks and keys are of normal size. I believe I have tracked down an actual example of the type of lock fitted to MJK's door and if successful will bring it to the conference. Once again if anyone can tell me how to do it I will gladly post the relvant diagrams on the boards.
My knowledge of doors and locks is limited to an MOE course I did in the seventies. If you know what MOE stands for - you know, if you don't - you don't (how do you do one of those smiley faces)
all the very best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 07:27 am | | Dear Bob,
My opinion on the door and lock are mere conjecture...based upon a little knowledge of the subject plus a little practical application.
The arcane world of Smileys is a mystery to me.
Rosey:-) |
Author: Robert Maloney
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 08:23 am | | Judith,
Thanks for such a revealing non-reply.
You mean of course, that type of response is
to be expected, considering my last name.
How nice.
Top O' the morn
Rob |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 04:16 pm | | Rosy,
Mary's room had sash windows. The slide up and down windows within the general window frame would have been removed,-- not the general window frame removed from the brickwork of the building. I would have thought Kelly photo No1 was taken from outside of building with camera placed tight up to partly dismantled window. Kelly photo No2 was certainly taken inside the room, the foot of the bed pulled away from partition wall a little to allow photogragher access. The reason being I should think,-- it was possible to get the best shot of the damage to the vaginal area, and to see the knife marks on the inside of the left thigh. A Victorian exterior door and frame,even in a slum dwelling can be quite formidable, and if the door is locked with a mortise lock, you will need a crow-bar, or pick-axe head to lever it open. And there will be mess and splintering to door and frame, but not that much that the door can't be secured afterwards with a hasp and staple! and the windows secured with boards nailed or screwed to the window frames, I don't know whether ply was available at that time.
We have gone through this situation before, is this theory way, way, too simple?. Why must some of you think so complicated?. These murders were committed 113yrs ago, in the worst slum in England, do you find it so impossible to reason that the killer was a slum dweller himself. Simply educated, maybe a touch unbalanced in mind, but clever!! Too clever for most ripperologists, so clever, to most of you, he has to be, a lawyer, a teacher, a doctor, a knight of the realm, or for Christs sake, a prince of the realm!!If there is an after-life, whether up, or down, I bet he's rolling.
Regards, Rick. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 05:15 pm | | 
Courtesy of Stewart Evans |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 06:55 pm | | Dear Warwick,
Sash-window forced open and the door at same time then. The point being that the photograph of the outside of Kelly's room not contemporaneous with the sequence of events directly following the murder.
Jon,
The illustration is quaintly sinister?
Rosey:-) |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 07:07 pm | | Rose-eye
The outside photo of number 13 (in the back yard) shows 2(3?) broken window pains in the smaller window, top right & bottom right (and bottom left?). Just as required by the evidence.
Dr. Phillips describes the two windows and tells us "of which I had a photo taken".
Is this it?
We don't know, but nothing in the picture contradicts what we know of the scene on that day.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 07:12 pm | | I think this one is dead in the water Mr J !
You can of course still believe that the photograph is inverted , but the weight of evidence is against you on this one. I can't see that you have a hope of proving it , sorry old chap !
Next argument : that red really is blue !  |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 07:18 pm | | Mr. S
Who are you addressing? |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 07:25 pm | | | Mr J-acunius with his fiery sword of truth ! |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 07:39 pm | | | Jon, could you enlarge the sketch so that we can see the "FM" on the wall more clearly? |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 08:01 pm | | 
Courtesy of 'A Diary Enthusiast' |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 08:21 pm | | | Gee, thanks, Jon, I knew you wouldn't let us down! |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 08:28 pm | | Hey,..you know me...maybe I have Abberline's sense of humour.
:-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 05:39 am | | Jon,
"Moscow Rules"...suspect everyone and EVERYTHING.
Red-eye Rosey :-) |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 05:44 am | | Jon -
Will Abberline's sense of humour be on show alongside his walking-stick at Bournemouth? |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 08:31 am | | Hello again Rosie,
my interpretation of events at Miller's court would be this, (for what it's worth).The murder was discovered by Bowyer, the police were fetched. Bowyer showed them the window he had seen the body from, after telling the police the door was locked. Knowing orders stated that a murder site was to be kept "clean" until bloodhounds arrived, the detectives contented themselves with studying door, windows, and yard for evidence, they did not try to enter!.
The photographer and surgeon arrive. The photographer needs the sliding frames of glass removed from window to take a good shot of the
body, without entering room, Bagster Phillips would have agreed with that for identification purposes. Tools would have been acquired from McCarthy's to take out windows, I think McCarthy would have done that job. Barnett appears on the scene, he's taken to the window and asked if he can identify body. He identifies body as Kelly's.
Though I can't see how, from that distance, in that light, and the face in the condition it was in. Eventually word arrives, no dogs are coming, make an entry to the room. McCarthy levers door open with a pick-axe head. Thats the sequence of events as I see them Rosie,-roughly.
And as written at the time.
My Regards, Rick |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 10:55 am | | Dear Warwick,
It appears that "sequences", "series", "events",
"developments" surrounding the 'official' police investigations are not as clear as the historians would like them to be...the fall-back position is,
Rosey's Golden Rule: The less we know the more we understand; and the more we understand the less we know!
As ever,
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jon
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 05:33 pm | | Rick
Phillips entered the premises first and then sent for the photographer.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Steve
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 01:25 pm | | Rick,
I don't think there would be any need to force/remove the sash window. Any of the local bobbies/CID would have known how to slip the lock on this type of window.
As I've said on another board the full length photo was taken with the camera resting on the widowsill of the opened larger window with the aid of a flash source to the left of the camera,viewed from the rear.
I don't see why you place Barnett at the scene for ID purposes.Is there any evidence to support this?
Jon
"Phillips entered the premises and then sent for the photographer"
Is there any evidence that the photographer was sent for after the room was entered?
Regards
Steve |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 07:56 pm | | Steve
This will all depend on what anyone accepts as evidence.
London Times, Nov. 10th
Manchester Guardian, Nov. 10th.
From this we are able to deduce that the door was forced around 1:30pm and while Phillips was making a preliminary examination, the photographer was sent for. The primary exam. started around 2:00pm, after the photographer was finished, and the whole thing wrapped up around 4:00pm (times vary) with the arrival of the coffin.
You still believe a flash was used?
I used to, but I am interested in whether others do.
One reason I reconsidered that point was that in October when the police were talking about photographing the graffiti they said they had to wait until it was light.
Why do you believe the camera was resting on a sill when contemporary press dwg's show a tripod?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 13 June 2001 - 07:38 am | | Dear Jon,
I did not realise you were putting up this particular press drawing as evidence...you are kidding us...are'nt you?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 13 June 2001 - 07:41 am | | Hello Jon and Steve,
Steve I think perhaps you mis-understood me a bit. McCarthy and Bowyer were both involved with the arrival of the police. McCarthy, Bowyer, and police officials were at the scene together. I think McCarthy would have dealt with his own property, with the help of Bowyer,- that would mean opening the windows.
Maybe the police, and Bagster Phillips in particular asked for the sliding windows to be removed from the window frames, or perhaps as Jon says, it was the photographer when he arrived later, I would have thought McCarthy would have dealt with that job too. The photographer would certainly want as much light as possible, and taking the glassed frames out of the main frames of the window would give quite a bit more light. I think photo No1 was taken from the larger window, but was the camera held steady on the window-sill, or was it on a tripod hard up to the outside of the window.
I can't make up my mind, do you get the impression of looking down at body, or looking
across at body?. I think a flash or flare was needed to take these photographs, just imagine,
a dark November day,-drizzling with rain, a dark street, a dark backyard, surrounded with buildings
and a small dark room. Steve, as far as Barnett arriving on the scene is concerned,- Bruce Paley writes, "Into the midst of this scene came Joseph Barnett, sometime in the early afternoon."I heard there had been a murder in Miller's court, he later told the press, "and on my way there I met my sister's brother-in-law, and he told me it was Marie. I went to the court and there saw the police inspector and told him who I was and where I had been the previous night. Barnett then peered through the open window to view the body and confirmed that it was Kelly. McCarthy had also confirmed Kelly's identity. With the identity being confirmed from the window, that says to me, the light was not as bad as I tend to think it was, the mutilations of the face were not as bad as we thought,-- but we know they were!! McCarthy was making a knowledgable guess as to who it must have been, and Barnett KNEW who it was!!.
There are those of us who won't believe that Barnett could kill three or four women to put mortal fear into Kelly and keep her off the streets. There are those of us who would believe that Barnett could have killed Kelly, but no one else. But if Barnett killed Kelly,-- and I think circumstances and evidence point the finger at him, (you cannot ignore it), if some of you believe he killed Kelly in the way he did, then of course,he could and did kill the others.
Regards, Rick |
Author: Steve
Wednesday, 13 June 2001 - 03:18 pm | | Hi All,
Jon,
The Manchester Guardian item is so full of errors I'm doubtful as to its use in this area.
The Times however appears to give details that match the inquest evidence.This article confirms that the photographer was on site prior to the door being opened.
With regards to the camera resting on the window sill this is based on my own measurements from the photo and a CAD reconstruction. I don't profess to be an expert in this field and my conclusions could be flawed however the results place the camera within inches of the window sill.
I believe flash was used for the main photo due to the following.
Well defined shadows cast by the mattress onto the bedstead.
The shadow cast by the thumb of the right hand.
The bright area illuminated on the liver.
There are also several traces over the photo which I believe are caused by burning residues from the flash.
Rick,
I see your point about McCarthy dealing with his own property but given the size of the window I doubt that it would need to be removed.
I'm not familiar with Paleys work and I wonder where these press statements from Barnett can be found? I would have thought that the police would have been extremely cautious in allowing what could be considered their prime suspect into the murder scene.
Off the top of my head, didn't Barnett have a corroborated alibi for the night of Kelly's murder.
Regards
Steve |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 13 June 2001 - 05:47 pm | | Steve,
I can only quote from Paley's book regarding the window frames removal,--" Phillips consulted with Ins Beck and it was agreed that the room should not be entered until bloodhounds arrived". In the meantime, the window frame was removed and a police photographer took several pictures of the remains.
As far as Barnett's alibi goes,-- According to the Daily Telegraph, Barnett told the police that he was at Buller's Lodging house in New Street, and was playing whist there until half
past twelve, WHEN HE WENT TO BED!! what sort of an alibi is that!
Regards Rick |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 13 June 2001 - 07:03 pm | | Rosy-posy
Of course your right, those press hounds purposely drew that sketch just to throw future investigators off.....wicked of them, ain't it.
Rick
(I almost choked)....where on Earth did you read that I said the photographer removed the window ????
As to your 'reconstruction'.....would I be correct in assuming its in the developement stage?
:-)
Steve
The press reports are not what we could call primary sources of evidence, agreed. What we have to do is compare press stories with other witness statements, and so where we read in the Times that Supt. Arnold ordered the removal of the window, we have to weigh such claims against other statements like Abberline, Phillips, etc who both agreed that the crime scene stay intact until the arrival of the hounds, and when word arrived that they were not coming McCarthy forced open the door on instructions from Arnold, and Phillips was the first to enter the room.
If you read up on Inspector Beck, who was the first official to arrive, he closed the court "to everyone", therefore there were no press present, the court was empty until Phillips arrived and other police officials, and after gaining entry the photographer was sent for.
We can easily question the one solitary report of the window being removed because to do such a thing would go against what the police were told, "secure the location and wait for the hounds". No-one saw such a thing because the court had been cleared of all bystanders, we have both Abberline's & Beck's statement, 2nd hand, on that count.
I would be the last one to defend press statements, but we have to weigh them against other known reports and only when something conflicts should we feel justified in questioning the 'singular' source, as with the window removal. However the Times has one of the worst records for accuracy (as mentioned by a previous poster some time ago) but all reporters added a little "something" to give their reports a little edge over the other newspapers.
Your quite within your rights to believe the window was removed, should you choose to do so but that likelyhood is against all the other known statements given by several official sources, not to mention that there was no such point brought up at the inquest.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 13 June 2001 - 08:44 pm | | Dear Jon,
So who is this new character (press artist) that you introduce into the wall of Miller's Court?
I am not suggesting a window was removed...easier to force the lower-sash upwardwards.
I believe that the sun was shining brightly at the moment the photo was taken...and/or...another light-source intruding.IMO.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 13 June 2001 - 08:57 pm | | Hi Rose-ery.
I introduced?
You wouldn't be suggesting its a forgery, would you?
;-)
Seems to be the "in thing" these days.
Ever wondered what a coincidence it was that Barnett was able to claim the recently broken window pain enabled him to reach the spring-lock and that it may have been broken around the time the key was lost.
Coincidences abound in this case.
But, if we dare to consider that the pain was broken with the intent of being able to reach the spring-lock, then this also might lead us to assume the sash windows didnt open, right?
Things to consider.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 04:07 am | | There, there Jon, (pat on back)
If I made a mistake in my phrasing, I'm sorry, You must have known I would have meant McCarthy, I've said it often enough!!
As to my reconstruction,-- I thought it was coming along in leaps and bounds compared to Dr Bonds re-write up on Kelly's death and mutilation!AND,, re- positioning Bucks Row!!
Rick |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 04:22 am | | Jon, go back to my message of 07:41,Wed,June 13.
You will see I didn't say that you said the photographer removed the window. Rick |
|
|
|
|
