Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 03:47 pm |        |
Attached to this message is a PDF (Adobe Acrobat format) of the "Orion Thesis", which was sent to me some time ago. Hope this helps.
|
Author: Joseph
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 06:14 pm | |
Hello Rick,
Thank you for your kind reply.
I thought everyone would recognize the bit about my treatment for piffleitis, (Penicillin, oatmeal, and hot chutney) as an attempt at humor. I guess writing comedy skits for Hugh Laurie is out of the question. Oh well. :-(
I have to agree with Mr. Smyth, this guessing game has a definite Radkabooian flavor to it. I think I'll take a pass on this one, and concentrate on something a little less enigmatic.
Happy New Year |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 06:18 pm | |
I think my point about the Orion mystery still stands - its possible to read a pattern into anything ! DavidOz's theory might be seen as impressive - until one actually looks at the constellation of Orion and realises it looks nothing like his picture on the right !
So lets get this straight - turn the map of Whitechapel sideways , then reverse it and , well it looks a bit like Orion even though there are 3 stars missing and Bellatrix is in completely the wrong place and the stars in Orion's belt are at the wrong angle and ...
This is exactly the problem with Robert Bauval's theory that the Pyramids of Giza represent the stars in Orion's Belt. They do , if you ignore the fact that they are upside down and the smallest pyramid is at completely the wrong angle and ... Deja vu ? ( N.B. Bauval is a collaborator with Graham Hancock , as well as writing books in his own right on the ' sacred geometry at Giza ' ).
As pointed out above , this kind of patterning has been done in Manhattan by the BBC Horizon programme to produce a deliberately spurious result. Nuff said ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 06:25 pm | |
Is it possible to return to the correct topic on this board now , rather than the rather obscure things that we have been debating here recently ? When new generations of Ripperologists come to read this board in the far future , they won't have a clue what this all has to do with the key to Kelly's room !
Thank you ! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 05:09 am | |
Dear Mick Lyden,
Yours was one of the few recent posts with any relevance to the topic, and which I had a prayer of understanding. You wrote:
'Barnett wouldn't have given up serial killing to become say a philatelist.After all it is common knowlege that philately will get you nowhere!'
While I can go along with your first statement, I'm afraid we are back to piffle for your second. My father was one of the most obsessive philatelists on this planet and he always taught me that philately gets you everywhere. (Except, please God, anywhere near Orion's Belt.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rotter
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 05:54 am | |
Caz, you may have this in mind:
Orion's Belt: Was this in fact Orion's Penis? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 01:14 pm | |
Blimey, Rotter, was I prophetic or wot? :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Michael Lyden
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 05:24 pm | |
Caroline,
firstly a happy new year to you.
Unfortunately when the opportunity to use a nausiatingly awful pun arises, I tend to jump at it!and yes the topic of discussion seems to have drifted somewhat(nothing new there).
A lot of people are of the opinion that the missing key is a bit of a "red herring" but I am sticking with it.
Warwick,happy new year to you and I look forward to some good "chunky" Barnett flavour discussions.
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 06:21 pm | |
Always ready to accomodate you Mick, I'm sure I could convert you to my way of thinking,---- given time!J
Rick |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 07:15 pm | |
When Mary stuck her arm through that window to undo the doorlatch I will make the assumption she used her right hand because most people are right handed. I could be of course wrong. To do this she would have had to either stand with her torso at right angles to the side of the building in which case she would have had to undo the latch backhanded and looking over her shoulder, or she could have faced the side of the building but then since her arm would project from her shoulder at an approximately 90 degree angle it would lessen the amount of reach she had by an inch or two. I am 5'7" tall and my arm measuring from the "corner" at the top of my shoulder to the tip of my third finger is @ 26 inches. Measuring from my armpit to the tip of my finger is @ 24 and 1/2 inches. From the tip of my finger to the middle of my palm is five inches.
Maybe if several of the women who post on these boards could take similar measurements and if we could get some idea of Mary's approximate height we could come close to figuring how much of a reach Mary would have had to have and if she really could do it. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 04:11 am | |
Hi Diana,
How do we know Mary ever needed to use this method herself? I tend to think, as Viper - and Jon? - have suggested, that Mary would have left the door unlocked when going out, at least after the key was lost. While Joe was still at No.13, if they accidentally locked themselves out, he could reach through the hazardous broken window to get 'em back in again. After the split she would most likely have taken even greater care not to lock herself out. If I were her, I would not have cared to put my arm through that pane threshold (ouch!!)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Davidoz
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 06:13 am | |
| Key left on door-lintel! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 08:27 am | |
Hello Diana,
I can only approache the problems and puzzles of this mystery by trying to put myself in the position of the particular participant. I'd be wasting my time trying to do it the way you surmise Kelly may have done it. There are some things a situation says you can do only with your left hand, whether you are right or left handed. Personaly, I would be pressed tight up to the window, facing and as close to the door position as possible, and reaching through with my left hand. To put it mildly Diana, I think it would pretty well be impossible to do it your way. Of course if it was a bolt they were jiggling with, then a small stick could be kept within reach just inside the window to wriggle the bolt back and forth,-- with the right hand, but I don't credit that solution much, it's not known what sort of fastener was inside the door. Mary was as tall as Barnett, if he reached through to open the door, then she could too! she wouldn't have to rely on him to do it for her. Anyway, I also believe neither of them would have secured the door every time they went out, but they would have secured it before retiring for the night,--that's human nature. Caz, you said, I wouldn't care to put my hand through that pane threshold,--but is it taken for granted that the jagged glass was still there?. I'm only wondering,-- because if I was going to continualy put my hand through a broken window pane,-- then I would certainly clear the remaining jagged glass from the frame! I can barely believe they would be that,"couldn't care less".
My Regards and Best Wishes
to you both in the New Year
Rick |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 08:33 am | |
Diana,
Mary Kelly was 5ft-7in tall, a tall girl for those times! |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 12:50 pm | |
Davidoz
The door to #13 was recessed with no external lintel, check the pic. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 01:04 pm | |
Hi Rick,
I agree that Mary would most likely have secured the door while either alone inside or entertaining, which would also suggest she let her killer in.
But jagged glass or no, awkward manoevre or easy as pie, I don't think any evidence points to the window being used by the pair as their everyday mode of entry. I just don't think it would have been necessary, that's all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 07:01 pm | |
| Dear Warwicke, I thought of the left handed solution. I was reluctant to mention it because although I am personally right-handed I am slightly more dexterous with my left hand than most righties. Though I would have used my left hand, I wasn't sure that the ordinary right handed person would. I'm glad you cleared that up. I'm excited to find out that I am exactly the same height as Mary, so maybe my arm measurements would prove to be of use. As to whether Mary always or ever let herself in that way we need to know whether Barnett said "I" or "we" in describing the situation. Also it would be helpful if someone could figure out how far Mary would have to reach and compare with my arm measurement. Also the weather was cold. That means she would have been wearing several layers of clothing when she poked her arm through that glass. |
Author: Davidoz
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 07:31 pm | |
Michael,
"...missing key a bit of a "red herring"".You have a good nose as well. |
Author: Davidoz
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 08:02 pm | |
Rotter,
Cyber-primadonna,eh.Well done.Seems your'andcock and baulsvilles know less than "Jack the Lad". Now you have them sulking.Do you really think the girls will go for this w---ing thing? |
Author: Davidoz
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 08:07 pm | |
Diana,
Left hand or right hand...what the hell! Orion had a missus called Diana. Odd thought. |
Author: Davidoz
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 08:13 pm | |
Warwick,
YOU "...put yourself in the position of the particular participant"? Not a chance in hell!HE WAS A GIANT AMONGST MEN. HE WAS A TITAN. A GOD.Ask Rotter. |
Author: Davidoz
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 08:23 pm | |
Men and Womb-men,
I am the key...it is left on the door-lintel...Mary points to it... yet, Poussin holds it also. Its as plain as the proverbial pike-staff. |
Author: Davidoz
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 08:31 pm | |
Hello?
Where have you all gone? At this rate I will be left with only my sheep for abacus...and a good night's sleep. A deathly silence ensued... |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 08:42 pm | |
| Not " The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail " now , Davidoz ? U saying the Priory of Sion are involved too ? Maybe more than you suspect... |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 08:43 pm | |
Davidoz,
you feel strongly about this don't you,? please excuse, I've already disgraced myself again tonight. I think I'll call it a day. Rick |
Author: Michael Lyden
Thursday, 04 January 2001 - 08:25 am | |
Hello everyone,
I think we need to establish exactly what type of lock was fitted to Kelly's door to enable us to move this discussion forward.
It is all very well saying things like"Mary could have left the latch on...."or "the killer fled, locking the door with the key" etc..
Until we know the details of the lock, for example did it have a latch, was it lockable even,then we are not realy making any progress at all.
From what I can make out the type of lock used was of very simple design .The bolt was either moved manually or by the key and returned by a spring
I have decided to do a bit of research so that we can at least establish the type of lock that was likely to have been fitted.Unless of course somebody can tell us for certain what type it was.
Now there seems to be something clogging the boards emm... oh there it is, it's an attention seeker.
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 04 January 2001 - 12:30 pm | |
How do you suppose we go about it, Mike?
We have covered most of the locks available at the turn of the century, but no wiser. There is no way I know of to be so exacting....there's a choice of several designs thats about as near as we can get.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Davidoz
Thursday, 04 January 2001 - 05:32 pm | |
If our Jack was Joe,
the "key must go!"
If Joe was Jack,
Its the window 'crack'. |
Author: Davidoz
Thursday, 04 January 2001 - 08:05 pm | |
Simon,
Troi Paris...Joe (you remember, the carpenter?) had a thing about France.
P.S.
Another GLOBAL thread. |
Author: Michael Lyden
Friday, 05 January 2001 - 03:06 pm | |
Hello John,
I agree that we may never know the exact type of lock that was fitted to kelly's door.Essetially all we need to do is establish whether Kelly's door was lockable using the key. After considering certain facts I am now forced to conclude that the door was lockable and therefore the murderer did indeed have a key.
Like many other people I was baffled as to why,out of all the persons assembled outside No.13, after the discovery of the corpse, nobody could work out the alternative way of entering the room.
But what if Mcarthy or Barnett did suggest this method and one of them tried it only to discover that the bolt was held fast by the locking mechanism?
This is the only scenario that makes sense especially considering the fact that the lock must have been clearly visable to all when the window frame was removed for the photographer.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 05 January 2001 - 06:14 pm | |
G'day Mick,
I just wanna know, which way did Kelly's door open, (from left to right or right to left)? This would help us determine on which side the lock and latch was installed.
If the latch was on the edge closest to the bed, I'd say that the apparent 'ladies jacket' may have hidden the view from the window. If that was the case, only Barnett knew of it's existence.
Jon made a sketch earlier, of how he belived the table/door/lock/latch was positioned. I reckon the latch was way too high, considering it had to be reached from the broken window.
Leanne! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 05 January 2001 - 07:13 pm | |
Leanne,
The lock or latch was on the edge of the door nearest the window. If it had been on the edge of the door nearest the street nobody would have reached it from the window.
Rick |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 05 January 2001 - 07:53 pm | |
Are there any buildings anywhere in the Eastend of London the same design and era of Miller's court, maybe preserved for the sake of history?--"the way they were and the way they lived" sort of thing. If there are such preservations, maybe the locks on the doors are authentic,--a very long shot I realize,---Viper?
Regards Rick. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 06 January 2001 - 06:53 am | |
Hello Diana,
Take the outside corner of Mary's room, between the door and the window. Say from the corner of the brickwork to the door, counting the thickness of the doorframe is 22inches or 1ft-10in,-- then from the corner of the brickwork to the nearest edge of the window, also 22inches or 1ft-10in,-- then you, being the height you are, could reach across the corner to open some kind of a catch. I'm 5-9 and I could reach easily. If the brickwork measured slightly less one, or both ways, it would be easier still. If it was more, it could be a bit of a stretch. I hope this is of interest to you,
My regards to you, Rick. |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 06 January 2001 - 11:50 am | |
Rick,
Though Dorset Street has gone, quite a number of the old three and four story houses dating from the late seventeenth and early eighteeth centuries survive in the immediate area. Mary Kelly's room was partitioned off just such a house.
In Brick Lane most of the ground floors are used as shops. The upper floors are either used as storerooms or are residential. Many of the properties in the sidestreets have been returned to something like their original condition by the wave of yuppies who have moved into this area in the last few years. As recently as ten years ago, plenty of houses in Fashion, Fournier, Wilkes and Princelet Streets (among others) were in a state of dereliction, frequently lying empty or just used by local traders for storage. Whatever one's thoughts about 'gentrification', these properties have not been so well maintained for 200 years or so, when the local silk industry crashed.
The additional, speculative slum buildings, like the houses lining Miller's Court have longsince gone from the immediate area. Somebody else may know whether pockets of such buildings survive elsewhere in the East End, but even if they do, years of slum clearance surely make it impossible that they are residential today. Houses of that kind were just thrown up over back yards, gardens and on any other open space to exploit the chronic shortage of affordable housing for the poor. In the brave new world of post-war Britain nobody would have wanted to save slums like that for posterity.
In any case, I cannot see that you can learn much about the fixtures and fittings of one building simply by looking at similar properties over a century later. No doubt there was a wide variety of locks and bolts available in the 1880s, as there is today. Besides, the locks on these houses could have been changed many times through the intervening years.
Regards, V. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 06 January 2001 - 02:16 pm | |
Michael
In answer to your "why did no-one else figure out the alternate method?"
I think simply this......both windows were covered, there was no light source for the room, therefore in looking through the window they were looking into a darkened room, though they were able to pick out a body on the bed the light was likely not sufficient to locate a small latch on the back of the door, assuming they even knew there to be one.
Leanne
The door opened away from the window/corner, the handle/latch was nearest the window/corner side.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 06 January 2001 - 05:53 pm | |
G'day JON,
About a year ago here, we discussed the boarding up of Kelly's windows. This wasn't done, until after everyone viewed the body throught the window, Barnett had identified her and the police photographer had taken his first shots.
WARWICK: I accept the fact that the latch/lock was nearest the broken window, for the same reason I believe that the latch wasn't installed so high.
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 06 January 2001 - 11:04 pm | |
Leanne
You really confused me with that one......
Then it clicked.....I said "the windows were covered"....
I was refering to the curtains and coat hung across the windows.....NOT the boarding up.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 05:25 am | |
G'day Jon,
errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....When Bowyer didn't get an answer knocking at Kelly's door, he moved to the window and put his hand through the hole to pull back the coat and curtain. Once a photo was taken of everything exactly the way it was found, I'd say the coat and curtain would have been the first to go!
They had to wait for the "OK" to break down the door, but nobody stopped them from getting an unobstructed view from the window!!!
LEANNE! |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 07 January 2001 - 08:04 am | |
| I have just looked at the picture (under Dorset Street) of Mary's window. There is perhaps 1 course of bricks between the edge of the window and the corner of the building. The bricks in my fireplace (built in the early 1980s) are 10 inches long but this is the wrong side of the Atlantic and 100 years too late. Then you have to allow @ 2 inches of window frame giving a total of 10 inches to 1 foot. I am the same height as Mary (5'7") My arm, from armpit to the tip of the longest finger is 24.5 inches. However you can't grasp a locking mechanism with the very tip of one finger so subtract about 2" giving 22.5". We can now construct a right triangle using my adjusted arm length as the hypotenuse and the distance from the windowpane to the corner of the building as one leg. The formula is A2+B2=C2 or in this instance 112+B2=22.52. This works out to 121+B2=506.25. Subtracting you have a value of 385.25 for B2. The square root is 19.63. So the distance from the corner of the building to the latch was certainly under two feet, and allowing for the fact that Mary probably had to reach downward it was probably less than a foot and a half. Then I also did not allow for the thickness of the wall which would have made the distance smaller still. All in all that door was a lot closer to the corner than I always thought it was |
