|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 8, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
The Goulston Street Graffito:
Archive through May 8, 1999
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 04:59 am |        | Hi Joseph,
will do. I don't have it here at work, I'll send it this evening private. I can mail or e-mail. Does it matter? I just need your address/link.
Jon, the flat-earth bit goes two ways, those who cannot see over the horizon, and those who will not. Do you mean by that that you are right and others are wrong? I for one believe the 'M' and, for what it's worth the 'F', to be figments. You say, it's in the photo, it must be there. We can't see what the 'M' looks like where it may be hidden by the bed. Is that evidence that it is an 'M'?
Now, in the first photo is an 'F' clearly to be seen cut in Kelly's left arm. Take a look. Then think about maybe a part of the 'F' on the arm being shadow. Is an 'F' there? Photographs were not accepted as proof in British Law for a very long time. Reason, not only because of the dangers of manipulation, but the dangers of misinterpretation.
Now, it is your good right to believe in the 'FM', for what ever reason. It is my good right, and the good right of others, NOT to believe in it and such silly comments as 'flat earth' don't do any credit to you. We are not fools. We who do not accept it do not refute the 'FM' bit because we tossed a coin. Evidence has been checked, photos examined, reports sifted through, points discussed, meetings held, speeches heard and the decision reached that has been. We can still be wrong, but if you believe in the 'FM' then you believe in the diary, whom Mike Barrett, the owner, claims to have dictated and his now ex-wife to have written. Will you tell him he's wrong? Where is the slightest evidence at all that Maybrick had anything to do with the diary? Take a look at the watch story. Do you honestly believe that James Maybrick, a cotton merchant, would use a Lady's watch in 1888?
The so-called wooden partition with these marks on it is a door, behind which the start of a staircase leading to the upper floors was situated. Some reports are that the room had been partitioned off. More likely IMHO is that the room was a small back parlour of no. 26., the internal entrance to the room being the door seen in the photo, it being blocked by Kelly's bed. The reason for this assumption is the position of the staircase. It is unlikely that the stairs had previously been standing free. That means that the rest of that wall against the bed would have been a normal brick wall with the staircase supported by it.
As I posted yesterday, the photos that I have seen were almost definitely taken indoors, except the one of the two windows outside. I do wonder about the second photo. It is assumed that the bed was moved to get this shot, but the angle to the back wall does not seem to substantiate this. The bed must have been turned if it was moved, there not being enough room to move it parallel to the side wall because of the table and the entrance door seen. Could it be that the photographer set his camera on the bed, against the wall? It does seem unlikely but not knowing the lens angle of cameras then, it could be possible. That would, of course, also assume that the doctors did not have the bed moved, also unlikely. Can it be that the room was wider than supposed or was the bed narrower as a normal sized one? I have estimated the size of the room taking the size of a normal british double bed as reference.
Regards,
Bob |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 01:11 pm | | Hi All,
Far be it from me to interpret Jon's post, Bob, but I thought he actually meant exactly what you are saying. In other words, if the stains that look vaguely M-like went down much further behind the bed, and we could see the whole wall, the M theory would indeed collapse.
The opposite of course is also true, in that the stains may NOT continue on down the wall. Unfortunately the device to enable us to see behind photographed objects has probably not got a patent pending yet so, unlike the flat earth mystery, this one is likely to remain unsolved for the timebeing.
I tend to agree with Chris and Bob c that the M is dodgy and the F is dodgier still. I think the F on the forearm looks clearer but inconclusive.
Don't forget though that the 'Diary' believers simply used these 'initials' to support their belief. This does not mean that the 'hoaxer' meant any of the three 'images' to be taken as 'an initial here, an initial there'. We could all have missed what he/she meant. I like to keep an open mind when it comes to interpretation of the diary content, rather than constantly argue with the people who brought it to us, and I don't mean the forger(s) here. We know that mistakes have been made on all sides.
The question I'd like to ask again, before steering us all back to Goulston Street, is:
who were the OFFICIAL police or press snappers? I didn't mean I thought our Jack was a roving journo who 'crashed the crime scene' to get his snaps as well as his jollies. I thought he may have been even more of an 'insider' than that.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 03:21 pm | | Hello Bob C.,
Just click my name for my e-mail address.
Thanks again for your time.
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: Julian
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 07:02 pm | | G'day everyone,
Um, I'm just gunna chuck a bit of food for thought in here and see if someone can take it anywhere, or anyone take it somewhere.
I think most of us agree that Jack had a MO which included ripping the guts out of supposed ladies of the night. Now the question I have is: Why would he only start leaving 'trademark' initials on his last two victims? Serial killers, being what they are, leave these 'trademarks' on all their victims not just one or two.
You may wish to counter this argument by saying that Ah ha, he didn't carve up the faces of his other victims either, but I'll say that that was part of his MO. His mutilations gradually got worse, ending as we know with MJK.
Anyway, jsut thought I'd throw that in.
Jules
(What the hell's a jsut?) |
Author: Jon Smyth
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 07:05 pm | | Bob.C
You must be feeling a little embarrassed today
I've always dreaded misunderstanding someones poste and then making an fool out of myself by jumping down there throat. !!!! :-)
How does it feel Bob ???
Touch yer toes while I kick yer ass !!!! :-)
Seriously though, you made me laugh, I couldn't possibly 'snarl' back atcha because you so obviously got my post or name confused.
Anyone here with 20/20 vision will tell you where I stand regarding the silly F.M. and 'diary'.
And I suggest you re-read my 'previous poste on the F M'ers'......and satisfy yourself that I'm DEFINITLY of the same opinion as you.
I said before this is all one big joke to me, ie the 'diary' the 'FM' the 'womans watch' the whole darn thing is too stupid to laugh at.
So, in short Bob, you accused me of saying summat I didn't say, and supporting summat I didn't support.
THAT my friend, will cost you a pint ........
(your forgiven)
All the best, Jon |
Author: Jon Smyth
Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 08:41 pm | | This report in the London Times of Nov 10, 1888
interests me. (on this site)
Is this the only press comment that mentions removing windows?
If we read it section by section I think we have a disjointed story here. If someone can produce an official report corroborating this act please do so. (R.E. where are you??)
The Times article states that 'Arnold satisfied himself that the woman was dead, and ordered one of the windows entirely removed, it goes on to mention an examination that takes place prior to the door being forced'
Is this the only source for Begg, Sugden & Rumbelow ?
I hope they have a more official source to quote from. Because I for one have a few legitimate concerns.
If Superintendent Arnold gave the order for a window to be removed, then he did so in front of Inspector's Beck & Abberline, also in front of Dr Phillips. All these men testified at Kelly's inquiry.
Why then did they not mention it ????
Not one of them even hinted at this occurance, in fact quite the contrary, they testified against such an occurance.
Let me quote from Dr Phillips testimony.....
'I arrived at 11:15 and found a room .....having two windows, I produced a photograph I had taken (this photo may be the 'outside' shot that still exists) there are two windows in the court, 2 of the pains in the window nearest the passage were broken........I looked thru the lower broken pane'.
[so obviously no window had been removed prior to the Doctors arrival]
'Having ascertained that probably it was advisable that no enterance should be made into the room at that time I remained until about 1:30 when the door was broken open, I think by Mr McCarthy - I think by direction of Supt. Arnold who had arrived'
Then the testimony of Insp. Beck;
'I sent for the Doctor and closed the court to all persons, I do not know by whose order the door was forced, I was there, the Doctor was the first to enter the room...'
Then the Testimony of Insp. Abberline;
I had an intimation from Insp. Beck that the dogs had been sent for, Dr Phillips asked me not to force the door but to test the dogs, if they were coming, we remained until 1:30 when Supt. Arnold arrived and informed me that the dogs were not coming and gave directions for the door to be forced, I have heard the Doctors evidence and confirm what he says. I have taken an inventory of what was in the room'
Now is it possible that each of these men omitted the removal of a window?, and an examination by Doctors that was never entered into testimony? and the probability that these men would have had to climb into the room thru a removed window?
Are we to believe that all this went unmentioned?
And that Abberline would be satisfied to take an inventory after the place had been trampled?
The testimonies appear to be complete and the inquiry lasted only one day so there is no missing testimony from these men.
So how does this London Times article fit in ?
In fact to date this is the only mention of such an occurance I have found, but I admit I don't have all the press reports, so if anyone can provide more, a corroborative source rather than a repeat report, I think we all would appreciate hearing it.
I have to state that this London Times report appears dubious at best.......
Please read this report on this Casebook site on the menu under 'Press Reports' London Times for Nov 10, 1888.
And who know's maybe we can find a legitimate source for Begg, Sugden & Rumbelow.
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 02:40 am | | No, Jon, you are correct, the window was not removed, and the extant photo's of Kelly's body were both taken from inside the room after the door had been forced. I have written a dissertation on the whole incident (to go with my Kelly crime scene photo's piece) but I have not, yet, posted it.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 05:16 am | | Hi Jon,
No, I am not in the slightest embarrassed nor do I intend to bend. First of all, though, I had to read my own piece a number of times again to find out what I had actually meant! I didn't intend to attack you unfairly and if you feel I have, then please accept my genuine apology. The pint (or five) is yours with pleasure anyway.
That you hold the diary for a fake (as I do) is known to me. The critic I outed had only to do with the flat earth bit, on which I concentrated too much. It is now clear to me that the bit sounds different to how it was meant, which happens to me sometimes. Certainly not one of my best pieces, anyway. Simply put, I was moaning to you that if we assume even unlikely things for the purposes of testing evidence, that doesn't mean we belong to the flat-earth mentality. I am just as prepared to assume that the marks are real as that they are unreal, using both cases to test the supposed facts. Therefore the bit about the ‚F' on Kelly's left hand, which I presume to be part shadow, part cuts but don't know.
Joseph, sorry I didn't get around to sending the sketch, I forgot that I had a date yesterday evening. I think I will have to update (ha ha) it anyway. I'd tried to size the room by taking the size of house-bricks and working out an approximate distance as well as the bed size etc. I was trying to find out if the first photo could have been taken through an open window. The sash type windows could be opened, although this type of construction jams very easily. I had assumed this to be the case because Barnett claimed they opened the door through the broken window. If the sash had functioned, they could have just opened the unlocked window. Anyway I now think I've estimated the bed as being wider than it was, Phil Sugden's sketch probably being nearer.
I'll E you the new version in the next few days. You can decide yourself if it makes sense or not.
Jon, where do I send the booze?
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 07:09 am | | Hi All,
Has anyone considered the possibility that Jack had a hand in writing all these strange contradictory testimonies, statements, police and medical reports and so on? Was there anyone else who had the time or inclination to go over everything taken down with a fine-toothed comb, to check all was well, or were the scribes involved felt to be competent and above reproach, and so were left to get on with it? Time was of the essence, maybe all the reports and stuff were accepted at face value and filed away without, say, Abberline or the others thinking to check their words had been faithfully recorded.
Just a niggling thought that a really clever 'insider' serial killer would try all this and more to achieve maximum 'headless chickenness'.
Love,
Caz |
Author: RED DEMON
Friday, 07 May 1999 - 04:35 am | | Hello, All!
My! Did I ever start a fire! If I'd known it would be this controversial, I'd have started another Board! I'm glad to see great minds working against each other. That's how problems get solved. However, I don't know exactly how my name got mixed up with the 'diary', but I wish it would stop. I keep reading insinuations that I support the 'FM' in order to support the diary. That is absurd. I have no ulterior motive. No suspect to build a case for. My motive is the truth. Keep presenting your facts and I might change my mind on what the truth is. However, I haven't quite yet. In response to the post that the clearest photos are in the small books, not the larger ones, and that the photo was 'enhanced' to support the diary, let me point you all to the hardback of Donald Rumbelow's book. It has the clearest copy of the photo I've seen (Philip Sugden says the same), AND it came out before the diary! Oh my gosh! Maybe it's not a conspiracy!
And, as far as where the photo was taken goes, check it out... The room was 12x12. Find a room this size. Perhaps your bathroom if you have a somewhat larger one. Now, put a bed and a body in there. Close yourself in the room, and see if you can get a picture of the same angle. I can't see it happening. YOU WOULD HAVE TO STAND FURTHER BACK THAN THE ROOM WOULD ALLOW.
And just because the doctor got to the scene at 11:30 or so and the window panes were still in place, doesn't mean that they weren't taken out in the two hours until the room was entered.
And, Jon, I don't believe I misinterpreted you. I'm pretty sure you did say that the letters may have been caused by the doctor's splashing feet. Check on that for me, will you? I'm pretty tired from studying my 'speed reading' courses.
On another, more lighter note, does anyone know where I can get some of the harder to find JtR books, such as 'From Hell', "Psychic Investigation', etc. Your help would be greatly appreciated.
Stewart: I am most anxious to read your piece. I, like everybody else, have your book and think it wonderful. I trust you will tell the truth, or at least as you see it, without leaving out conflicting details. I try to do the same, myself. That's why I'm here.
And as far as the diary goes, let's stop bringing it up altogether,shall we? We're not here to disprove the diary, that's Melvin Harris' mission in life. And I am not Paul Feldman, nor pretend to be. And since these two gentlemen are not here to defend their claims, let's just stick to the matters at hand...trying to solve the little mysteries that make Jack and Co. so intriguing. When we get sidetracked into slandering, the point of it all gets muddled and we lose focus. Let's have fun, but let's be serious. Remember what Stephen P. Ryder said...at least 15,000 people a week read our scribblings on these boards. Obviously, most of them don't ever leave anything. I was like that once. But the fact is, our writings have an impact on the opinions and views of a very large number of people, so let's behave responsibly. The first board I read was a couple of guys babbling on about the weather, what they had for lunch, etc. I thought 'HOW BORING' and almost discontinued their use. Fortunately, I read on, and found many wonderful thoughts and ideas, many by you guys listed above, and I realized how important these message boards are for people interested in this case.
It's late and I'm rambling, so I'd better go. BY THE WAY, for those that don't know, under GENERAL DISCUSSIONS, here in the Ripper letters category, I started a new board entitled 'THE RIPPER, ZODIAC, AND FRIENDS'. I think It could be very worthwile. Check it out and leave your thoughts. Sorry I've been somewhat absent lately. Life keeps getting in the way, you know.
Anyway, I think you guys are great, keep up the awesome work, and let me know when I slip. You all are welcome to e-mail me, if you care to. I'll be seeing you soon. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON
P.S. Jon...If you don't see me for a while, that probably means that I walked too far and slipped of the edge of the earth...It's flat, don't you know! |
Author: D. Radka
Friday, 07 May 1999 - 02:35 pm | | C-M,
Thanks for your reply. I am attempting to determine the date of first publication of the graffito myself--it is important to me. Have a good day!
David |
Author: Jon Smyth
Friday, 07 May 1999 - 06:08 pm | | hiya RED
To be honest with you and straight up.......
I never mentioned anything about blood splashed by feet.
I was trying to point out that the splashes on the wall could have been turned into smears by the Doctors pushing between the bed and the wall.
It's only fair to point out though that it was suggested by others that the blood may have been dry by the time the Doctors arrived.
Now whether by this it is assumed that she was murdered between 2:00-4:00 in the morning or sometime after she was seen by Maxwell, like around 9:00 or thereabouts, I don't know.
And I'm not promoting either idea, I have no opinion as yet about this Maxwell evidence, it's the square peg in the round hole for me.
But if I had mentioned anything about blood splashing from feet, and then denied it, there would have been a choral outburst on this board.
Anyone & everyone would have jumped in with "Oh yes you did" !!!!!
But my previous poste's are here for all to see and I am being honest with you that I never mentioned anything about feet.
Now to the more important stuff ........
This business about the photo from inside/outside is what I want to get straight.
I went to great pains to go through the testimony step by step because I could tell that you were of the opinion that this 'window being removed' had occured and I tried to point out not only to you, but to CMD & Ashling that the report by Rumbelow, Sugden & Begg is very likely based on the erroneous Times article.
I wanted to show to all that there was no time for such an occurance. No inclination to do such a thing. No sensible reason to even suggest it.
The room had to stay closed up because they were expecting bloodhounds.
Dr Phillips wanted it to remain closed. Insp. Abberline wanted it to remain closed.
And remain closed it did. !!!
Only on the orders of Supt. Arnold was the room entered and that was by forcing the door.
It matters not whether you think the room was too small, we all know it was only 12x12.
The events are well and clearly described that day. Nothing is left to question, the testimony takes us through the events step by step.
I'm not sure what else we can do, its clear, understandable and on permanent record, sworn to by all the eminent men that were their.
If it wasn't for this Times article, I mean if it didn't exist, do you think that I could convince anyone that someone removed a window ???
Of course not, but I can't explain why it says what it says, but the whole article is a little disjoined, it doesn't flow with the known facts, and is not supported by any official testimony.
What more can I say ? ...If you still choose not to believe it, thats your right.
Regards, Jon |
Author: RED DEMON
Friday, 07 May 1999 - 11:37 pm | | Hello, Jon,
First, allow me to apologize about the splashed blood thing. Indeed, you did suggest smears and not splashes. I was wrong. But, about the windows being removed, I don't quite get your point. They didn't need to go in the apartment to remove them as you seem to think. They could have easily done that from outside, especially when considering the large hole in the glass. As a matter of fact, if they didn't remove the window (which I think they did) then they could have easily taken the photo through the missing pane of glass.It's interesting how you brush aside what I've said about the dimensions of the room. Is it possible that you're doubting yourself?
As far as the Maxwell thing goes, I'm inclined to believe her for the simple fact that the people she stated had sold her milk(i believe it was milk) right after having 'seen' Kelly that morning told the police that she was correct, and that her going there for milk was not a daily ritual. Two different people telling the same story says to me that she didn't have her days or times confused, and if that's so, then there are only two other alternatives... 1. She was lying through her teeth, or 2. She saw Kelly as she said she did. and at the day and time she said.
There's no reason to believe she was lying. She and her testimony made it as far as the inquest. It seems that if the police thought she were lying, they would've snuffed her testimony before that point. It's an interesting conundrum...medical evidence vs. witness evidence. A very worthy subject for discussion.
On another level of thought...A co-worker of mine tonight said she saw something on CNN yesterday about Jack the Ripper. She couldn't remember what, but she thought it had something to do with new evidence. Could someone shed some light on this? I went to CNN's website, but found nothing. Anyway, I can't wait to hear back from you. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON
P.S. Jon, you seem to be a little PO'd sometimes in your writing. Is it just me? I hope so. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 12:09 am | | RED
I didn't say anything about going in to the 'apartment' if thats what you want to call it, to remove a window.
I don't understand your reasoning.
Why is the official testimony so hard for you to understand, why do you keep coming up with sideline issues?
The broken pains of glass were on the wrong side to get that 'body on the bed' shot.
So why bring that up ?
They were in the right hand window nearest the passage, the 'bed' shot was taken too far to the left to be opposite the smaller right hand window.
The hole was 'not' large, we are talking about a camera with glass plates needing a flash gun, not a pentax that you can push thru a 4" x 4" hole.
We don't know how big the hole was but it was big enough to get your arm thru, thats all we know.
What have you said about the dimensions of the room.......it was 12 x 12 ..so ?
it was a single bed, usually 36-39" wide, leaving approx 9 ft of floor space.
Why are you creating something out of nothing ?
The testimony is clear what happened, why do you keep suggesting if's, but's and maybe's.
Like I said before, your reasoning is difficult to follow, almost like you can,t accept the 'facts' as recorded.
You seem to want to insist that somehow, someway it must have happened.
They didn't remove a window before the door was forced. Thats all there is, unless you want to come up with something more that 'maybe's' ?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 01:22 am | | From the angle of the shot its difficult to determine the bed size, but this looks a little too narrow to be a double bed, she was laid 3/4 of the way over towards the nearside (testimony) and she appears to take up most of it.
According to the missus, back in those good ol' days there was such a thing as a 3/4 bed, which was something smaller than a double but larger than a single.
This may be one of those. I seem to recall Bob. C ?? doing some scaling of Kelly's room, for some reason, unless I've got the wrong guy.
Bob, did you scale the interior too ?
Just looking at the outside shot in Rumbelows book, on the passage side of the wall there appears to be more than one brick width between the corner of the building and the door frame.
Two bricks with is likely or 2 1/2, so what would that be, a foot or 16" ? then a door frame which is typically 36-40" wide say 3 1/2 feet so now were about 6 feet total.
And then on the inside behind the door we have a table, and in the 'body on the bed' shot the table could be 18" to 24" wide, which leaves approx 48" or a little more for a bed.
All this approximation is just to show that there would be more than enough room inside for a tripod set-up.
Which is all academic as the picture is there and will have been done with a flash and on a tripod.
Ok, time for me to hit the sack now,
Goodnight all, ...Jon |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 12:14 pm | | Dear Everyone,
This is fascinating stuff.
As far as I am aware the most likely way of taking the interior photo(looking towards door, which I shall call MJK2) is by rolling up a blanket or similar and placing it against the far wall. Place your camera on top of this and bob's your uncle. I think it most unlikely that the bed was moved at all to get this shot.
MJK1 could have been taken outside the room with a large format camera. I think you are making the mistake of saying that just because the photo shows x amount of coverage that was all there was. It is entirely possible that the original glass negative encompassed a whole lot more but this was cropped down to produce the final photograph.
To be honest I think this is entirely possible as the final product is not as sharp as it should be, which leads me to think the photo was cropped, then enlarged.
MJK2 need not have been taken with the same type of camera, it could have been taken with a smaller roll film camera.
The photographs taken by the surgeon (Phillips) were almost certainly taken by this type of camera, as it is most unlikely that a Police surgeon would be luggging around a large format camera complete with tripod etc.
I would also suggest that removing this type of window is relatively easy, and equally easy to replace afterwards.
I believe the photographer has been identified as a civilian working on an ad hoc basis for the City Police.
all for now
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 12:49 pm | | Absolutely Bob.
Yes it could have been done, I hope you didn't think that there was any suggestion that it was not possible.
The window was of a type that could easily have been removed.
The issue, for me at least is,...where in all the extant testimony is there any reason to believe that it was done.
No-one at the scene appeared to want the room opened up, no-one suggested it should be opened up.
No-one gave the order for it to be opened up, by removing a window.
Nothing of the sort is suggested or implied in the testimony.
So my question has always been ..why do we think that a window was removed ?
The Times, critisized elsewhere for eroneous reporting, has stated something that is not supported by any other evidence or testimony.
I hoped Paul Begg might jump in and shed some light as to why he reported it in his book.
I had suspected some official testimony or some statement by a witness to the effect that a window was removed, but all we appear to have is a reporters 'story' not even a reference to it coming from a witness present.
The 'body on the bed' shot is quite easy to accept as shot from inside, their is no reason to question it. The idea that it 'could' have been shot from outside, is not in despute, it is the reason for even suggesting it, THAT is what is in despute.
Dr Phillips did not take any photo's himself, Bob.
Phillips stated that he had some taken outside in the yard. And that a photographer was sent for after his preliminary exam. But before the 'indepth' exam, attended by all the Doctors.
We seem to be in a rut here.
Can anyone dig around and find something else to suggest that this window removal and pictures from outside ever happened.....???
Happy hunting, Jon |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 01:39 pm | | Just a thought on this MJK2 shot of Bob.H.
We have reason to believe the bed was moved because these Doctors were investigating a very serious crime. It has been stated as to the size of the pool of blood on the floor, that it was considerble, or words to that effect.
This would allow us to speculate that they had to move the bed to determine this.
Given that this photographer was not into creating an abstract view for vogue magazine, I have to wonder whether any serious photographer would entertain placing a camera on a blanket in order to get a view of that angle.
If we look at your MJK1 (body on the bed) look at the close proximity of the table to the bed.
The table is almost up against the bed.
Then check that distance in your MJK2, there apears quite a distance between the table & bed.
In fact it also looks as though there is a blanket roll slipped down between the two.
Now if we see the split at the hinge side of the door, where the line if verticle light is, then the door is open, to a degree.
The table is pulled away from the bed, and the bottom of the bed could easily have been pulled away from the partition, at an angle.
The photographer was taking his shot diagonal across the room, in a more professional manner than placing his camera on a blanket, in order to get a odd angled shot.
It's my opinion that all the furniture had been moved and that is why we have this shot.
Had the evolution of the camera in the 1880's evolved to the degree that they could place a camera on a surface and take a shot that way, as you suggest, we could with todays camera's, but how about a 1880's vintage?.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Karoline
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 02:50 pm | | Hello All -
Re. The Evolution of the Camera. I'm no authority. But my Carroll-research has given me some knowledge of the basics of Victorian photography. And I have an artist friend, who is pretty well an expert in that field. I'll ask him to tell me all he knows about the state of the art in 1888.
In the meantime here are the few bits of facts I know. FILM was developed some time in the late 1880s, and was therefore probably NOT in use by the police in 1888.
The FLASHGUN gun was not developed (I think) until the early years of the 20th century.
Therefore, the camera most likely used by the police to photo MJK et al would have been a 'dry collodion' plate camera, with a cap lens and a fairly long exposure time (say average 45 seconds). It would have used only natural daylight for lillumination. I suppose this has obvious implications about the amount of detail it would have been able to reveal.
I'll try to get more info on focus-lengths etc.
Take care.
Karoline |
Author: D. Radka
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 04:58 pm | | This might be slightly off-subject, but can anyone identify something for me in MJK2, please. I've never been able to figure out exactly what those two fabric items at the back of Mary Jane's table are. They look something like pillows, but are rather misshappen to be that. Could they be two of the bags of laundry Mary Jane had been storing for her friend? What else could they be?
Do you think Mary Jane had placed them there, or did the police do it before the picture was taken, or maybe did the Ripper put them there? I notice the Ripper placed the offal on the front part of the table, so likely the two items were at the rear of the table at least as of the point in time the mutilations began.
Thanks, everyone.
David |
|
|
|
|
