How were the MJK photos taken?

[DJA]

Oh Goody!

A "what's in the wash tub" thread

Well....it's a change.....

[GUT]

Was there anything in it?

Maybe her washing gear, but that's nothing more than a guess.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Oh Goody!

A "what's in the wash tub" thread

Well....it's a change.....

Hi, DJA et al.

Actually, I think that the potential contents of the tub under the bed may be something we should give some thought and consideration to. The murderer evidently disposed of the contents of the victim's abdomen by placing her intestines on the right side of the bed, the liver and breasts under her head or by her feet and then dealt with the other removed cuts of skin and abdomen by placing them upon the nearby table.
As there was an available receptacle that would have held most of this offal, we might wonder as to why it wasn't utilised. Did the container go unnoticed by the killer, was its potential use ignored for some reason or was the intention of the criminal always to cause in any viewer an immediate and total comprehension of the destruction that had been wrought?
Such a train of thought may provide some further insight to the reasoning behind this particular murder and into the mind of the perpetrator.
If the pan/washtub was used and did contain some parts of the cadaver , do we have any statements that might infer as to what that might have been?

Yours, Caligo

[DJA]

Having a few technical difficulties and trust this is not a repeat.

You have raised interesting points.

Perhaps Jack did not use an under table vessel for major organs in post mortems and never even considered the idea.

Finsbury Square most likely had superior plumbing,so he probably did not even look under the bed.

As GUT will no doubt mention,the chamber pot lasted for many decades in Oz. However GB does not have Redbacks

Incidentally Mary Ann Kelly had an outside toilet near her door.

Hi, DJA et al.

Actually, I think that the potential contents of the tub under the bed may be something we should give some thought and consideration to. The murderer evidently disposed of the contents of the victim's abdomen by placing her intestines on the right side of the bed, the liver and breasts under her head or by her feet and then dealt with the other removed cuts of skin and abdomen by placing them upon the nearby table.
As there was an available receptacle that would have held most of this offal, we might wonder as to why it wasn't utilised. Did the container go unnoticed by the killer, was its potential use ignored for some reason or was the intention of the criminal always to cause in any viewer an immediate and total comprehension of the destruction that had been wrought?
Such a train of thought may provide some further insight to the reasoning behind this particular murder and into the mind of the perpetrator.
If the pan/washtub was used and did contain some parts of the cadaver , do we have any statements that might infer as to what that might have been?

Yours, Caligo

[GUT]

Having a few technical difficulties and trust this is not a repeat.

You have raised interesting points.

Perhaps Jack did not use an under table vessel for major organs in post mortems and never even considered the idea.

Finsbury Square most likely had superior plumbing,so he probably did not even look under the bed.

As GUT will no doubt mention,the chamber pot lasted for many decades in Oz. However GB does not have Redbacks

Incidentally Mary Ann Kelly had an outside toilet near her door.

I think it's a wash tub rather than a chamber pot.

But yep

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDAiq2-xeU

Red backs and toilet seats.

[Wickerman]

Maybe her washing gear, but that's nothing more than a guess.

Maria Harvey was the "laundry woman", and she left all those clothes to be washed, so presumably that is the tub she used. Maybe Kelly helped her with her laundry business?

[GUT]

Maria Harvey was the "laundry woman", and she left all those clothes to be washed, so presumably that is the tub she used. Maybe Kelly helped her with her laundry business?

Possibly, but I'd also include her soap etc to wash herself.

[Robert]

Very odd murderer if he left the organs etc on the bed and table for all to see, but having utilised the tub too, he placed it under the bed.

[Wickerman]

Possibly, but I'd also include her soap etc to wash herself.

I wondered about using that tub for washing/bathing, etc. I doubt it would fit through the doorway when it was full of water - so how would they empty it after washing?
There was a wash-stand in the corner of the room, if I recall the press reports.

The water tap was out in the yard so I suspect the tub was taken outside to fill and do the laundry, then empty down the drain. Bring it back inside when empty.
Personal hygiene was not so high on their list of considerations, typically a quick wipe-down was all that was necessary - hence the term "the great unwashed"

[Pierre]

We don't need to talk about probabilities because we know exactly where the bed was from the evidence of Dr Phillips:

"On the door being opened it knocked against a table, the table I found close to the left-hand side of the bedstead and the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition".

You get the exact same statements for the bed standing in front of the entrance door, that is the problem.

The table is "close to the left-hand side of the bedstead", i.e. between the bedstead and the entrance door, the bedstead is "close up against the wooden partition". i.e. the head end.

What we might see in MJK3 is all of this.

As you can see, you can not take the source "at face value".

[David Orsam]

You get the exact same statements for the bed standing in front of the entrance door, that is the problem.

No you don't Pierre.

The only statement we have is from Dr Phillips.

So there is no problem.

[David Orsam]

What we might see in MJK3 is all of this.

"Might" being the operative word.

We don't need to speculate about what MJK3 is showing because we have the clear testimony of Dr Phillips. It's not a question of taking anything at face value, it's a question of what Dr Phillips is actually saying.

[GUT]

I wondered about using that tub for washing/bathing, etc. I doubt it would fit through the doorway when it was full of water - so how would they empty it after washing?
There was a wash-stand in the corner of the room, if I recall the press reports.

The water tap was out in the yard so I suspect the tub was taken outside to fill and do the laundry, then empty down the drain. Bring it back inside when empty.
Personal hygiene was not so high on their list of considerations, typically a quick wipe-down was all that was necessary - hence the term "the great unwashed"

We used one when I was a kid, you bucket tee water in and when done bucketed a few loads out then tilted the tub to fit through the door to empty the last of it. I'd suggest she used it for both herself and her clothes.

[Wickerman]

We used one when I was a kid, you bucket tee water in and when done bucketed a few loads out then tilted the tub to fit through the door to empty the last of it. I'd suggest she used it for both herself and her clothes.

We had one too, I think it was called a slipper-bath, but galvanized just the same and more oval than round.
Can you imagine how long it would take to put enough warm water in a tub of that size when you only have a kettle. By the time the second pot has boiled the first in the tub would have gone cold.
I avoided the suggestion that Kelly had a bucket as none have been mentioned.

I'm inclined to think the washstand would have been the preferred means of washing herself.

[Joshua Rogan]

I'm inclined to think the washstand would have been the preferred means of washing herself.

I'm not sure what it says about her personal hygiene, but wasn't the washstand described as "disused"?