Left or right handed.

[DRoy]

Jon & Michael,

I mentioned this on the "coat" thread already but it could apply here also...we have to assume that the police would have asked those who had been in Mjk's room what the room normally was like, what's been added, what's missing, what's different, etc. The two obvious people would be Barnett and Harvey as they both had stayed there and were considered strong enough witnesses to testify at the inquest.

I understand MJK could have moved the furniture for any number of reasons at any time. Maybe MJK purposely positioned her bed there to keep strangers out? Maybe the table was close to the bed because Kelly thought it more comfortable to sit on the bed while eating at the table? I'm sure we could all come up with different reasons. I'm not sure the reason matters though if Barnett or Harvey could say "oh yeah, she always positioned the furniture like that at night". But surely the police would have asked if the furniture placement was normal or not.

Based on the fact the furniture placement doesn't seem to ever have been mentioned, I would assume that it was not at least a normal thing for the bed to be where it was after the murder. If the bed was not in the normal position then we may also assume other furniture was also moved especially considering the size of the room.

Whether furniture was heard being moved or not I don't believe is sufficient enough to say it hadn't been moved.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Whether furniture was heard being moved or not I don't believe is sufficient enough to say it hadn't been moved.

Cheers
DRoy

Not knowing when Mary's murder took place is a problem, if the movement of the furniture is associated with the murder, then all the furniture could have been moved before Prater returned at 1 o'clock.
In fact it could all have been over by then.

Or, after Prater went to sleep, between 1:30 and 3:30 am. she said she slept soundly, and had been drinking, so likely wouldn't hear any furniture being moved.

.

[RivkahChaya]

Regarding blood volume: what was the floor of MJK's room made from? Was it wood? Was it stone? Was it some kind of concrete? If it was stone, did it have a soft clay mortar? In other words, would it soak up blood, or not?

By way of comparison, in a recent documentary, that was generally rather silly, on Lizzie Borden, the producers went to the Borden house, and Luminoled the floor boards underneath the area where Abby Borden had been killed. They glowed. There wasn't much surprising about it, as everyone knew that was where she'd been killed, and that Luminol can bring out blood more than 100 years later. The only real new information was that the blood had soaked all the way through the floor boards, and even into some of the joists. I have no idea whether or with what the boards were finished, or how they were cured. But I guess when you lose a huge volume of blood at once like that, it does coagulate, it just dries out.

So, depending on what the floor was made of, it may have absorbed some blood.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Folks,

To answer one of the questions you asked Rivkah, Marys floor was wood planks.

On the furniture issue, there were 2 tables in that room, one is a night table, and the second is the multipurpose table under and between the windows. Neither table would have been moved much generally speaking..we are talking about roughly a 10 x 10 foot space here.

It is the larger table under the windows that the door butts against when they enter the room Friday afternoon, and there is a good reason why that table may have been moved that night by the killer. If he didn't know that the spring latch could be set to lock the door behind him as he left, he may have slipped out one of the windows. If it was the one nearest the corner, where the hole for the keyless access is, there is another break higher up which may have allowed him to lock the window after he left...leaving a room with locked windows and door.

Best regards

[DRoy]

Jon,

That was kind of my point.

If Barnett or Harvey could say that the furniture after the murder was in the same position as it always was previously then we know the killer didn't move them. If they however said the furniture had never before been moved around or never been in the position it was after the murder then the question becomes who moved it and why.

I would tend to agree that the position of the furniture was not normal and had been put in that position by the killer. I'm speculating but I'm not sold that the table was positioned specifically for the purpose of holding MJK's internal parts. I think the table became a "convenient" place to hold them.

So, left or right handed? I don't think the position of the furniture supports one over the other in the MJK murder at least.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Im not sure why there is any discussion about his moving or not moving the nighttable, on which the entrails can be seen in the MJK3 photo and as reported in all the literature. There are no entrails or any kind of remains on the eating table, under the windows. That table is the one the door butted against, which only means that table was adjusted from its regular place...a possible reason for that I just mentioned....to get out the window.

To reiterate...the nighttable,..upon which entrails are seen and found, is where it would be everynight Mary stayed in that room..unless she tried variations of the furniture layout out of boredom at some point. There is no reason....at all...to suspect or suggest that table was moved....its illogical and argumentative, and not at all helpful.

We KNOW someone moved the eating table somewhat, and we know the room is found with locked windows and a locked door. So the killer went out 1 of 4 ways. He set the latch "off", which would mean the door would simply close and lock behind him. He left via the front window, moving the eating table in the process and used the broken upper pane to access the lock to lock it. He left the latch on, then went round to the window and reached in to engage the lock. Or....He locked it with the lost key.

The only evidence that could conceivably be used to prove any of those 4 options right now is the fact that her eating table was not in its usual place, and blocked the normal swing in of the door,...which swung in from right to left by the way.

Best regards

[Wickerman]

The table that was struck by the door, as it opened, was the one by the bed.

If a table under the window had been struck by the door as it opened, it would not have opened, in fact it would not open to let the killer out either.

Therefore, as the door swung open it hit the table that stood by the bed, suggesting this table was not it its typical position.

Why the bed was placed a few feet from the passage wall is another mystery, unless the washstand stood behind the headboard.

.

[Michael W Richards]

The table that was struck by the door, as it opened, was the one by the bed.

If a table under the window had been struck by the door as it opened, it would not have opened, in fact it would not open to let the killer out either.

Therefore, as the door swung open it hit the table that stood by the bed, suggesting this table was not it its typical position.

Why the bed was placed a few feet from the passage wall is another mystery, unless the washstand stood behind the headboard.

.

I believe the door contacted the eating table Jon. The nighttable is apparently clear of where the door would swing by....opening from the inside, from left to right. Its why I believe coat hooks would be behind it as its sits open.

All the best

[DRoy]

Im not sure why there is any discussion about his moving or not moving the nighttable, on which the entrails can be seen in the MJK3 photo and as reported in all the literature. There are no entrails or any kind of remains on the eating table, under the windows. That table is the one the door butted against, which only means that table was adjusted from its regular place...a possible reason for that I just mentioned....to get out the window.

To reiterate...the nighttable,..upon which entrails are seen and found, is where it would be everynight Mary stayed in that room..unless she tried variations of the furniture layout out of boredom at some point. There is no reason....at all...to suspect or suggest that table was moved....its illogical and argumentative, and not at all helpful.

We KNOW someone moved the eating table somewhat, and we know the room is found with locked windows and a locked door. So the killer went out 1 of 4 ways. He set the latch "off", which would mean the door would simply close and lock behind him. He left via the front window, moving the eating table in the process and used the broken upper pane to access the lock to lock it. He left the latch on, then went round to the window and reached in to engage the lock. Or....He locked it with the lost key.

The only evidence that could conceivably be used to prove any of those 4 options right now is the fact that her eating table was not in its usual place, and blocked the normal swing in of the door,...which swung in from right to left by the way.

Best regards

Michael,

I don't think it illogical and argumentative to provide an opinion. Isn't that what a forum is for?

Why are you so sure your version is the correct one? What are you basing it on? If you are using MJK1 a/o MJK3 as your evidence then you'd have to answer when the photo was taken and somehow prove that the furniture was not moved by any of the policmen, medical men or the cameraman. I think you'd find most believe at least some of the furniture has been moved around at some point. In fact, you even state its a fact that the eating table (as you call it) was moved. I know of no such fact, although it does seem likely.

I could be wrong Michael but I don't remember having any confirmation that the window was one that could lift up so that someone could even climb out. You mention locked windows but I don't remember hearing that before. You'd assume that if the window could lift up then it would probably be easier to lift the window up to unluck the door rather than reach through broken glass.

I have not heard that the door opened from right to left. Can you provide your source, I'd love to know more about that. I have for some reason always assumed it swung the other way.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,

I don't think it illogical and argumentative to provide an opinion. Isn't that what a forum is for?

Why are you so sure your version is the correct one? What are you basing it on? If you are using MJK1 a/o MJK3 as your evidence then you'd have to answer when the photo was taken and somehow prove that the furniture was not moved by any of the policmen, medical men or the cameraman. I think you'd find most believe at least some of the furniture has been moved around at some point. In fact, you even state its a fact that the eating table (as you call it) was moved. I know of no such fact, although it does seem likely.

I could be wrong Michael but I don't remember having any confirmation that the window was one that could lift up so that someone could even climb out. You mention locked windows but I don't remember hearing that before. You'd assume that if the window could lift up then it would probably be easier to lift the window up to unluck the door rather than reach through broken glass.

I have not heard that the door opened from right to left. Can you provide your source, I'd love to know more about that. I have for some reason always assumed it swung the other way.

Cheers
DRoy

I seem to have to defend known data often...not very encouraging.

The windows were locked and an example of where the door knob was, which explains how the door opens, can be found in some of the illustrations. Here is one.

[Zena]

Wouldn't the door have to open from left to right, with the doorknob on the side closest to the window? Otherwise, no one would be able to reach the latch through the broken pane.

[Wickerman]

Wouldn't the door have to open from left to right, with the doorknob on the side closest to the window? Otherwise, no one would be able to reach the latch through the broken pane.

Exactly, the doorknob was nearest the corner of the building, the door swung to the right.

.

[Michael W Richards]

Exactly, the doorknob was nearest the corner of the building, the door swung to the right.

.

Seems you didnt trust the sketch much Jon, it shows that the knob on the outside was on the right hand side of the door, thats because, as I said, it swung inward to the left. You do of course realize that the knob is on the side of the door that detaches when the catch is withdrawn.

So if it detaches on the right hand side and is hinged to swing inward...voila.

Best regards

[DRoy]

Michael,

I'm sorry you feel you have to explain known things. I honestly was asking for confirmation of the source so I could read it myself. I do appreciate you taking the time to show and explain. Obviously, i'm not the only one that thought differently than you so thanks for sharing.

Can you please confirm whether that drawing is the only source for the door opening right to left?

Can I please also ask you what your opinion is on my comment about the window lifting up being easier than putting their arms through broken glass?

Thank you
DRoy

[Zena]

Comparing the drawing to the photo, the illustrator has both of the windows as the same type, the same size, and on the same level, which is clearly not the case in the actual photo of Miller's Court. He also put the drainage pipe on the wall with the door instead of the wall with the windows as it is in the photo.

IMO, he probably didn't get door correct either.

(First time attaching graphics, so I hope this comes out OK! )

Photo of Miller's Court found here:

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=6&pos=2