Working position of the killer

[Pierre]

One additional point....Mary Kelly had defensive wounds on her.

What is the evidence?

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

One additional point....Mary Kelly had defensive wounds on her. When Elizabeth Prater and Sarah Lewis heard the call out, both listened for further sounds which did not come. That means the call out DID NOT signify the beginning of an attack on Mary.

Some evidence of that comes from Elizabeth Prater in particular, because she could "hear when Mary moved about in her room", and heard nothing after the call.

[Michael W Richards]

Yet it is part of your case (as you confirmed to Elamarna) that the police moved the bed against the partition, and the table against the bed, in order to create MJK1. So, by your own words, there's a problem with your case is there not?



I would say you are wrong about that. The data source which suggests the killer moved the furniture is of high reliability. It is the evidence of Dr Phillips that the door knocked against the table when it was opened.

What we don't have, Pierre, is any data source suggesting the killer barricaded the door with any of the furniture. What we do have, fortunately, are data sources of very high reliability that the door was not barricaded.

I keep seeing the same unsubstantiated remarks even after its been proven they are either pure speculation, inaccurate, and/or, pure fiction.

Why this is allowed at all puzzles me, that it continues annoys me, and I don't understand why the source isn't restricted to voicing any of these so called theories under our Fiction section.

[David Orsam]

Yes Michael, but the problem is we donīt have any data source suggesting the police moved around furniture.

Yet it is part of your case (as you confirmed to Elamarna) that the police moved the bed against the partition, and the table against the bed, in order to create MJK1. So, by your own words, there's a problem with your case is there not?

What we do have is data sources suggesting the killer might have done that. They may have a low reliability but they are there.

I would say you are wrong about that. The data source which suggests the killer moved the furniture is of high reliability. It is the evidence of Dr Phillips that the door knocked against the table when it was opened.

What we don't have, Pierre, is any data source suggesting the killer barricaded the door with any of the furniture. What we do have, fortunately, are data sources of very high reliability that the door was not barricaded.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes Michael, but the problem is we donīt have any data source suggesting the police moved around furniture. What we do have is data sources suggesting the killer might have done that. They may have a low reliability but they are there.

When I make a suggestion or work with a hypothesis I go all the way with it. When I do, that doesnīt mean that I am convinced of anything.

Regards Pierre

We do have some information that we do not need confirmed by the police Pierre, for example, almost certainly the killer left the room via the door. Both windows were latched, the door was likely set with the latch off so that it would lock when it closed behind the killer as he left. That means there wasn't any furniture that later impeded access to the room. Which means "forcing the door open" was likely inaccurately characterized.

What we also know is that Elizabeth Prater claimed she could hear when Mary "moved about" in her room, which suggests that there wasn't noise made that was loud enough to wake her again after Diddles initially did.

We also know that Marys throat was first slit when she was close to the partition wall, because of the splatters. Since she is in the middle of the bed when found, she must have been later moved to that position.

[Pierre]

I think as David said Pierre, you can imagine all the scenarios you want to explain how body/bed positions don't seem consistent from MJK1 to MJK3. What I believe is that there must have been some manipulation of the crime scene to allow for any photos to be taken, this room was 10 x 10 without furniture, there the police and photos to negotiate the space. As I said before, there were apparently 6 photos taken by at least one photographer, who knows what positions the bed/Mary/table were in for those shots.

Yes Michael, but the problem is we donīt have any data source suggesting the police moved around furniture. What we do have is data sources suggesting the killer might have done that. They may have a low reliability but they are there.

When I make a suggestion or work with a hypothesis I go all the way with it. When I do, that doesnīt mean that I am convinced of anything.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

A word to the wise.

If you are going to use one of my drawings upon which to superimpose your fantasies [Post #18], at least have the good grace to first ask my permission.

Being a charitable sort of chap, I can only imagine that the copyright notice at the bottom of the drawing escaped your attention.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

it did. And thank you for your kindness.

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

I think as David said Pierre, you can imagine all the scenarios you want to explain how body/bed positions don't seem consistent from MJK1 to MJK3. What I believe is that there must have been some manipulation of the crime scene to allow for any photos to be taken, this room was 10 x 10 without furniture, there the police and photos to negotiate the space. As I said before, there were apparently 6 photos taken by at least one photographer, who knows what positions the bed/Mary/table were in for those shots.

[DJA]

Arghhh!

Adblock not working!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pierre,

A word to the wise.

If you are going to use one of my drawings upon which to superimpose your fantasies [Post #18], at least have the good grace to first ask my permission.

Being a charitable sort of chap, I can only imagine that the copyright notice at the bottom of the drawing escaped your attention.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

There is evidence Michael. Look at MJK3 and MJK1.

Has it occurred to you that the doctors would have required full and unfettered access to all sides of the bed upon which the mutilated body of Mary Jane Kelly was lying in order to carry out their initial examination? As the bedstead was found 'close up against the wooden partition' (evidence of Dr Phillips), either the wooden partition would have had to have been dismantled or the bed moved to allow the doctors the access they needed.

Once the bed had been moved, the photographer could have taken further photographs to augment those he had previously taken showing the original state of the room.

It really seems to be very simple.

[Pierre]

Many of us have ideas that include information being withheld Pierre, but proving that requires some evidence that there was some sort of collusion or suppressed information.

There is evidence Michael. Look at MJK3 and MJK1.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

This is not a game. It is reality.

It's not reality at all Pierre, it's fantasy. I mean, your evidence for there being an actual functioning door in the partition of Kelly's room turns out to be nothing more that the newspapers described her room as being separate from the rest of 26 Dorset Street. It's just ridiculous. The newspapers described it that way because that is what it was. Saying "a room" would not have conveyed the fact that it was an artificial space created from a larger space in the house, so that 13 Millers Court was the same as 26 Dorset Street. That is something readers of the newspapers would have wanted to know. You tell us that we have a responsibility to "think critically" but I suggest you need to think critically about your own posts because they are becoming more and more nonsensical while remaining totally detached from the actual evidence in the case. In fact, you also seem to now be inventing quotes such as "just a wall and nothing else" . If you can't interpret the evidence properly, please at least stop falsifying it.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

We have to use a critical perspective on sources which are all talking intensively about a wall in a house in Spitalfields.

Why? Because it is a wall in a house of a murder scene and not just any murder scene but one - an perhaps the worst - of Jack the Ripper.

Doing forensics in that time, the police of course did not share everything they knew with the public. And naturally, only those who did see the crime scene knew how it really looked.

What we have today is their perspective through a camera lens. We can see a part of what they saw.

But apart from what they saw, they gave information to the press.
And that is a completely different thing.

Now, the questions when you are thinking critically about the talk of the wall in room 13 are for instance:

Did the police have a possibility to tell the whole truth about the crime scene?

Could they tell the press all the details? Rember the short inquest and itīs lack of details!

Is it possible there were details of the crime that the police did not tell the press?

Are the statements in the press, given by the police, objective or do you find a tendency in the sources? For exampel the tendency of describing the wall as "just a wall and nothing else".

What is the function of the sources? Is it to give the public the unbiased truth about the full details of the crime scene - or could it be to tell the public what the police wanted them to know?

I think a function of the sources is to assure the public that there was no connection between room 13 and room 26. Why? There is a lot of talk about a wall in the articles. Why should the police bother to get this information about a trivial matter as a wall through to the press if they did not have a reason?

Surely, they could just have called it "a room" and nothing else.

And the partition wall "cutting the room off from the rest of the house" could just have been called a wall. Or preferebly not mentioned at all.

So the frequent talk about this trivial matter can have an important function for the police.

And we must realize this and not automatically believe what the police wanted the public to believe.

Also, we have to consider the MJK3 photo as beeing the most important photo.

It showed up many years after the murder when no one was left to remember the reason why this photo should not be shown to the public.

If we interpret old sources and think critically about them, we might get information from them that earlier generations of ripperologists did not have.

But if we get stuck with old ideas, we might not see what the sources are showing us.

So for the sake of the memory of the victims, I think we have a responsibility to think critically.

This is not a game. It is reality.

Regards Pierre

Many of us have ideas that include information being withheld Pierre, but proving that requires some evidence that there was some sort of collusion or suppressed information. I cannot know whether there was some disinformation used here, there has never been any evidence presented that demonstrates that it was, so unless you've discovered some hard proof it was, it remains a purely speculative concept.

What you have with the JtR cases are investigations that were run and/or supervised with the highest ranking counterespionage personelle in London at that time. Not men with a track record of solving violent crimes, but men trained to deceive and suppress. I say this to show you I am not easily convinced of any "truths" in print, which is one reason I challenge the evidence to clearly demonstrate that the opinions of the police about how many murders were by one man were defensible within known physical evidence.

Which it seems to me, they weren't.

[Pierre]

Im ok with you disagreeing Pierre, I can see that you have some ideas that pivot on this particular point. However all the contemporary references to that wall, and some made a few years later, support my statement that the wall was constructed of scrap materials including an old door from the shed with a faded 26 on it. There was no access through Marys partition wall unless it was breached forcibly, and the fact that it is stated that it was made by using scrap fits well with a room that was rented to Mary for about 10-12d a week when Unfortunates paid 4d for a bed for one night. Mary was in arrears for about 2 1/2 weeks to the tune of 28d.

The killer entered room 13 via one of the alcove windows or the door to Millers Court. The only access to the interior of 26 was the doorway inside the archway, not via the shed.

Hi Michael,

We have to use a critical perspective on sources which are all talking intensively about a wall in a house in Spitalfields.

Why? Because it is a wall in a house of a murder scene and not just any murder scene but one - an perhaps the worst - of Jack the Ripper.

Doing forensics in that time, the police of course did not share everything they knew with the public. And naturally, only those who did see the crime scene knew how it really looked.

What we have today is their perspective through a camera lens. We can see a part of what they saw.

But apart from what they saw, they gave information to the press.
And that is a completely different thing.

Now, the questions when you are thinking critically about the talk of the wall in room 13 are for instance:

Did the police have a possibility to tell the whole truth about the crime scene?

Could they tell the press all the details? Rember the short inquest and itīs lack of details!

Is it possible there were details of the crime that the police did not tell the press?

Are the statements in the press, given by the police, objective or do you find a tendency in the sources? For exampel the tendency of describing the wall as "just a wall and nothing else".

What is the function of the sources? Is it to give the public the unbiased truth about the full details of the crime scene - or could it be to tell the public what the police wanted them to know?

I think a function of the sources is to assure the public that there was no connection between room 13 and room 26. Why? There is a lot of talk about a wall in the articles. Why should the police bother to get this information about a trivial matter as a wall through to the press if they did not have a reason?

Surely, they could just have called it "a room" and nothing else.

And the partition wall "cutting the room off from the rest of the house" could just have been called a wall. Or preferebly not mentioned at all.

So the frequent talk about this trivial matter can have an important function for the police.

And we must realize this and not automatically believe what the police wanted the public to believe.

Also, we have to consider the MJK3 photo as beeing the most important photo.

It showed up many years after the murder when no one was left to remember the reason why this photo should not be shown to the public.

If we interpret old sources and think critically about them, we might get information from them that earlier generations of ripperologists did not have.

But if we get stuck with old ideas, we might not see what the sources are showing us.

So for the sake of the memory of the victims, I think we have a responsibility to think critically.

This is not a game. It is reality.

Regards Pierre