Door outside and inside

[ChrisGeorge]

Pierre

There is seriously no way to compare that hinge to the blurred highlight in the photo, which it is not clear is even an object, that really is wishful thinking.


As for the "knob" that is your opinion, others disagree, it has distinct shape, highlights and shadows, it behaves like a real object.
If it is and what it could be are of course impossible to say , but it does bear more than a passing resemblance to a door knob.

That you do not agree is fine; its just that I find your decision to remove it from the photo in post #20 somewhat at odds with what you posted earlier

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=363442&postcount=177

Steve

To much WISHFUL THINKING in this case. Well said, Steve.

[Pierre]

Not clear to me how anyone can make a conclusive statement out of nothing. Think again.

It isnīt nothing.

1. The police were not able to enter the room for two hours.

2. The coroner asked Prater if she had heard beds or tables being pulled about.

3. Bowyer did not see the body at first, and the body would have been visible from the window if the bed was in the canonically hypothesized position.

4. There is a later source (Dew) stating that the bed "was drawn obliquely across the small room".

5. The whole testimony of George Bagster Phillips corroborates the position of the bed barricading the door if you interpret it this way.

There is nothing radical with my hypothesis. The killer was an organized serial killer. By barricading the door he made sure no one could enter.

Regards, Pierre

[ChrisGeorge]

You make a supposition from a totally blurry "something" on a photograph. And we are supposed to take you seriously???

[Elamarna]

To much WISHFUL THINKING in this case. Well said, Steve.

No reply my friend to the actual points made, or the observation on the different responses to photo manipulation.


Most Telling!


steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

There is seriously no way to compare that hinge to the blurred highlight in the photo, which it is not clear is even an object, that really is wishful thinking.


As for the "knob" that is your opinion, others disagree, it has distinct shape, highlights and shadows, it behaves like a real object.
If it is and what it could be are of course impossible to say , but it does bear more than a passing resemblance to a door knob.

That you do not agree is fine; its just that I find your decision to remove it from the photo in post #20 somewhat at odds with what you posted earlier

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=363442&postcount=177

Steve

Dear Steve,

If that was a doorknob, it was placed on a door. If it is a door there, there is a courner on the right side of the hinges and the hinges belong to the door on the left side with the doorknob on it. That is how the house was constructed. You see this corner on the outside in the court in the old photographs.

But the problem with this is that the table then must have an extention through the corner, which is not possible since a bit of it would be outside the wall. That goes for the bed too.

And another serious problem is the very many black and white spots in the photograph. Enlarge the area with the "doorknob" and you see this. You have an area with not so many white spots but one larger one. This makes an interpretation of the area as a "doorknob" possible. But then again, the door is in the wrong place.

Of course, it can be another knob. And then it has nothing to do with the hinges and the door on the right side.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre


Of course none of post #32 answers what Chris or i have said at all.

And despite what you said

Hi Steve,


I think it is interesting to discuss different issues from the perspective of different sources, new and old.

Maybe A is not A. And perhaps S can not be used to postulate H. And maybe S can not even be used to discuss the question (Q) if A is A, since it is not a reliable source? Or maybe it is not relevant at all.

But maybe all this is relevant.

I am just asking questions since I think it will lead the case forward.

That is not what you are doing, it is exactly the very same argument you are putting.

It isnīt nothing.

1. The police were not able to enter the room for two hours.

They were waiting on the supposed arrival of bloodhounds, and how does a wait make your argument true?

2. The coroner asked Prater if she had heard beds or tables being pulled about.

And she replied no, it is of course possible there was some movement of the bed and table, no one can serious argue against that.

3. Bowyer did not see the body at first, and the body would have been visible from the window if the bed was in the canonically hypothesized position.

That is how you chose to interpret his statement.

4. There is a later source (Dew) stating that the bed "was drawn obliquely across the small room".

Much later yes "drawn obliquely" does not describe the what you suggest Pierre.


[QUOTE=Pierre;400170]

5. The whole testimony of George Bagster Phillips corroborates the position of the bed barricading the door if you interpret it this way.

Yes YOU interpret it that way.

There is nothing radical with my hypothesis. The killer was an organized serial killer. By barricading the door he made sure no one could enter.

It is very whats the words..... Wishful thinking.




Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;400186]Pierre

Of course none of post #32 answers what Chris or i have said at all.

And despite what you said

That is not what you are doing, it is exactly the very same argument you are putting.

They were waiting on the supposed arrival of bloodhounds, and how does a wait make your argument true?

And she replied no, it is of course possible there was some movement of the bed and table, no one can serious argue against that.


That is how you chose to interpret his statement.


Much later yes "drawn obliquely" does not describe the what you suggest Pierre.

Yes YOU interpret it that way.

It is very whats the words..... Wishful thinking.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I have no wish so it is not wishful thinking.

Regards, Pierre

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Steve,

I have no wish so it is not wishful thinking.

Regards, Pierre

No?

Like too many in the Ripper field: seeing something that isn't there.

[Elamarna]

Dear Steve,

If that was a doorknob, it was placed on a door. If it is a door there, there is a courner on the right side of the hinges and the hinges belong to the door on the left side with the doorknob on it. That is how the house was constructed. You see this corner on the outside in the court in the old photographs.

There are no hinges visible in the photo, you wish to see them.

As there are none, your interpretation of the inside of the room is incorrect.

But the problem with this is that the table then must have an extention through the corner, which is not possible since a bit of it would be outside the wall. That goes for the bed too.

No that is your interpretation of the photo, based on your view that the bed is drawn at nearly right angles across the door.

my view is that it is basically as in MJK1.

And another serious problem is the very many black and white spots in the photograph. Enlarge the area with the "doorknob" and you see this. You have an area with not so many white spots but one larger one. This makes an interpretation of the area as a "doorknob" possible. But then again, the door is in the wrong place.

That is what happens when one enlarges a photo, one has artifacts appear. However the Knob is apparent with out enlargement.

It may well be an artifact, it may not.
We need the plate to be conclusive, we do not have it!

Nevertheless its is more real at present than the blur you claim is a hinge.

Of course, it can be another knob. And then it has nothing to do with the hinges and the door on the right side.

There is no door on the right side!

Pierre, we can argue this Ad infinitum with out the plate.



steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;400189]

Pierre

Of course none of post #32 answers what Chris or i have said at all.

And despite what you said

That is not what you are doing, it is exactly the very same argument you are putting.

They were waiting on the supposed arrival of bloodhounds, and how does a wait make your argument true?

And she replied no, it is of course possible there was some movement of the bed and table, no one can serious argue against that.


That is how you chose to interpret his statement.


Much later yes "drawn obliquely" does not describe the what you suggest Pierre.




Hi Steve,

I have no wish so it is not wishful thinking.

Regards, Pierre

We both know you do.

And that wish as given me the understanding to know who?


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;400198][QUOTE=Pierre;400189]

We both know you do.

What a strange thing to say.

And that wish as given me the understanding to know who?

Steve

Iīm sorry but I donīt follow you.

Perhaps you have been working to hard over the last days?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

What a strange thing to say.

Not really, You have told me many times that you wish to be proved/prove yourself wrong.

That is your wish.

Iīm sorry but I donīt follow you.

Perhaps you have been working to hard over the last days?

Well yes I certainly have been, that is true.

However I have recently completely changed my view on who you are not trying to prove is the killer is.

Time we tell If I am correct.

Sorry to sound cryptic



Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;400203]

Not really, You have told me many times that you wish to be proved/prove yourself wrong.

That is your wish.

OK, I understand you now. Sorry, Steve.

Well yes I certainly have been, that is true.

However I have recently completely changed my view on who you are not trying to prove is the killer is.

Time we tell If I am correct.

Sorry to sound cryptic

No problem. Take care now.

Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

When looking at whether anything was altered by officials during the course of the investigation its clear from the images of MJK1 and MJK2....numbered as in our photo archive here...that if not a full person, then a camera with a remote shutter, shot the latter picture. When reviewing the image in MJK1 it appears as if some bedding has been deliberately stuffed down between the partition wall and Marys bed, near her right shin. I submit that is where the camera was when MJK2 was taken.

Was that bedding just sitting there happily waiting for the discovery and a camera to be perched on it, or was that bedding stuffed down by either the police or the photographer after they had taken over the room?

My point being that its almost certain that to some degree the room or its contents was modified from its original state to allow for the investigation to gather evidence it felt significant. I believe that is why we have the hard to believe historical position that for over 2 hours after the discovery by Bowyer, and after the courtyard was rife with police, no-one entered the room...and the additional hard to fathom story about a forced entry since the door was locked.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Pierre.

It isnīt nothing.

1. The police were not able to enter the room for two hours.

2. The coroner asked Prater if she had heard beds or tables being pulled about.

3. Bowyer did not see the body at first, and the body would have been visible from the window if the bed was in the canonically hypothesized position.

4. There is a later source (Dew) stating that the bed "was drawn obliquely across the small room".

5. The whole testimony of George Bagster Phillips corroborates the position of the bed barricading the door if you interpret it this way.

There is nothing radical with my hypothesis. The killer was an organized serial killer. By barricading the door he made sure no one could enter.

Regards, Pierre

1; You state that the police were not able to enter the room for 2 hours. A more precise way to describe the circumstances might, I think, be that they were unwilling to enter the room. As you are surely aware, the authorities were holding back from attempting ingress as they were awaiting the arrival of one or more bloodhounds, in order that some scented trace of the killer might be discovered and then followed. Once they had intelligence that the dogs would not be available for such a task, they spared little time in gaining access to the room.

2; Indeed, it was asked of Elizabeth Prater as to whether she might have heard the sounds of furniture being 'pulled about'. Given her testimony regarding the proximity of her room to that which was occupied by the deceased, her reply "None whatever", might be considered sufficient to indicate that no such rearrangement of furniture took place. In fairness to your point, however, I would concede that her testimony also shows she did sleep for a portion of the time that the murder and mutilation may have been occurring, making a statement from her on such matters less definitive.
Was this question posed by the Coroner because of information he had received from some authority or through some other channel and which he wished to clarify or was it that he was being thorough in his duties? If he had genuine suspicions or significant information regarding the alteration of the positions of the furniture in MJK's room, why would he not have made the same enquiry of any other witness?

3; From Thomas Boyer's testimony : "I put my hand through the broken pane and lifted the curtain. I saw two pieces of flesh lying on the table." While he does not state so in his evidence, we might well fancy that any person confronted with such a bloody carnival as that room represented, might exhibit some sense of shock and be in disbelief of their own eyes, causing them to flinch or momentarily withdraw before looking again to confirm what they saw. His testimony continues : "The second time I looked I saw a body on this bed, and blood on the floor." Evidently, he is still looking through the broken window at this point and can now, having overcome his initial and understandable trauma, clearly observe the degraded body of the victim upon the bed.

4; Walter Dew was, during the period of the murders, a Detective Constable in H division and we might reasonably hope that such a position might lead to some special insight into events. Unfortunately, analysis of his revelations seems to show that he is not a definitive commentator on these matters. The main body of his recollections were published around 50 years after the Ripper events and do not match, in most respects, the known facts either from official police documents or from the inquest testimonies. Much of what was published under his name can be read as a fanciful and decorative recollection, rather than a factual statement of the circumstances that pertained during the investigation at the time.

5; George Bagster Phillips, in his notes and inquest testimony, provides what is perhaps the most thorough and detailed description regarding the positions of the bed and the body as we can hope to have. From the comprehensive account which he gives, there is very little room allowed for interpretation. He was there at the scene some 2 hours before the door to the room was opened yet he makes no suggestion that there was any interference with the situation that he described after entry. He was most clear that the right-hand part of the bed was against the partition wall. "On the door being opened it knocked against a table which was close to the left-hand side of the bedstead, and the bedstead was close against the wooden partition."

There is, it would appear, no testimony from those individuals you have mentioned that supports the idea that the room occupied by Mary Kelly was barricaded. Indeed, from those you have specified, only Elizabeth Prater suggests any sort of intentional obstruction. And that is in her own room.
Had the door to Mary Kelly's room been barricaded or blocked in the manner that you are suggesting, then I enquire of you, where might be the testimony that shows and supports such an event?

If one did accept that the room had been in some manner barricaded, then from where might the person responsible for such action have made their exit? The windows were all closed. The old door which resided upon the partition wall was permanently shuttered and unavailable for usage. From the descriptions given in testimony and as can be observed from the known photographs of the scene, the bed is shown to be directly up against the portion of the wall that you have beforehand submitted was an entry and exit point.
This from The Daily Telegraph,November 10, 1888:
McCarthy, "looking through the window, saw upon the bed, which was against the wall, the body of a woman, without clothing, and terribly mutilated'(my italics).

1: If, as you have previously suggested, the door in the wall was usable, why do you think the police did not use it to gain entry?

2: How is your contention that the main and obvious door that would gain entry to the room was in some manner barricaded, not reflected in any of the official reports or testimony?

Yours, Caligo