Tweet
[QUOTE=Caligo Umbrator;400236]
Hi,
The "intimation" that bloodhounds were on their way meant that the police were not able to enter the room but had to wait. So that is what the sources say. They were not able to enter the room for about two hours, since they had to wait for the bloodhounds. This was what people were told. But no bloodhounds were sent. Everything I say here are well established historical facts.
There was a reason for asking this question. But what was the reason?
Her answer however is not the most interesting, since, as you show us here, it was not reliable. The question is the most interesting item.
A consequence of the coronerīs knowledge of the altered position of the bed after the murder should have been a question about the time of the "pulling about of beds or tables" if Prater had heard it. That is why the question is asked at the inquest.
Prater lived above the shed.
The pieces of flesh were smaller than the whole body and they were a less frightening sight than the mutilated face and mutilated body with the skeleton visible. There is only one reason he could have missed all this and that is he did not lift the curtain all the way to the left side of the window. The table was placed beside the door on the right side from the window. Lifting the curtain would make the table visible first and lifting it all the way towards the left side of the window would make the whole bed with the body on it visible. But he saw only the contents on the table the first time he lifted the curtain.
You are talking about individual perception and feelings, I am talking about centimeters.
There is the history of it. You may want a statement about the curtain here too, but we know he had to lift it in the first case, so this is what he did in the second case.
No, wrong there. He is not "still" doing it, but it is "the second time". It was 2 times.
1) Table with flesh
2) Body on the bed and also blood on the floor
Yes, but is there a tendence making him write that the bed was drawn obliquely across the room? We can not throw away the whole publication just because some of it is no good. So we must go into details. Is there a tendency?
And still, this interpretation is easily made. No problem at all. The bed was against the partition, even when drawn obliquely, and the door knocked against a table, also with the postulated position where the bed was barricading the door. Everything is very easily interpreted this way and I wonder if Phillips knew that. He did not need to lie, if he wanted to give the impression that the position of the bed was as in MJK1.
Wrong. This is not from his text: He was most clear "that the right-hand part of the bed was against the partition wall."
Instead he just speaks of the body having been moved "from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition", and yes, it was, if the bed was moved from that side!
1. MJK3.
2. The question from the coroner.
3. The testimony of Phillips.
4. The testimony of Bowyer.
No one has any evidence for that. Perhaps there may be a source speaking about a few nails.
In MJK1. Not in MJK3.
The original inquest source says nothing about "against the wall". But again, against the wall says nothing about which part of the bed was against it. There is a wall and the room is small. The bed standing in front of the door has it standing against the wall too.
I think they did.
As you can see above, it is.
Kind regards, Pierre
Hi, 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.
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.
The "intimation" that bloodhounds were on their way meant that the police were not able to enter the room but had to wait. So that is what the sources say. They were not able to enter the room for about two hours, since they had to wait for the bloodhounds. This was what people were told. But no bloodhounds were sent. Everything I say here are well established historical facts.
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.
1) Table with flesh
2) Body on the bed and also blood on the floor
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."
Instead he just speaks of the body having been moved "from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition", and yes, it was, if the bed was moved from that side!
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?
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?
2. The question from the coroner.
3. The testimony of Phillips.
4. The testimony of Bowyer.
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).
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?
Kind regards, Pierre
Comment