How were the MJK photos taken?

[MsWeatherwax]

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

I believe it was. Having said that, Mary was a (possibly) alcohol addicted apparently self-confessed prostitute. I doubt hygiene was that high on her to-do list. I imagine she did just enough to stay presentable by the standards of people living in an LVP slum.

[GUT]

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.

We just called ours a tub. We had a wood fired copper to heat water, out in the shed and just bucketed it in. Wonder if there was a copper anywhere in the Court? Never seen one mentioned anywhere.

[Pierre]

No you don't Pierre.

The only statement we have is from Dr Phillips.

So there is no problem.

Yes you do, David:

"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".

Here you go:

"On the door being opened it knocked against a table,"

= The table was in front of the entrance door.

"the table I found close to the left-hand side of the bedstead"

= The table was in front of the entrance door on the left-hand side of the bedstead and the bed was beside the table on the other side, with the head end on the right-hand side of the door.

"and the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition".

= With the head end on the right-hand side of the door, close up against the wooden partition.

[Pierre]

"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.

Tell me why you think the source for Dr Phillips is not equally important as a photograph taken from the crime scene, but more important.

And note that I have not told you which source is the most important.

[David Orsam]

Tell me why you think the source for Dr Phillips is not equally important as a photograph taken from the crime scene, but more important.

For three obvious reasons Pierre.

Firstly, Dr Phillips was the first person who entered the room, along with the police, so he knew exactly how it looked before anyone had touched anything in that room.

Secondly, we don't know the exact time that MJK3 was taken and whether any of the furniture had been moved by this time.

Thirdly, due to the angle at which the photograph is taken, and the low quality of that photograph, it is not possible to accurately assess distance and locations and objects within that photograph.

[YomRippur]

Do you think this sketch was in the press because that is what witnesses saw?


Courtesy of Stewart Evans.

This sketch doesn't seem to show the correct placement of the camera.

From the front view photo of Kelly's corpse, it appears the camera was placed at an angle:



The camera seemed closer to the foot of the bed.

The 2011 documentary "Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Story" recreates this moment and also puts the camera near the foot of the bed, albeit at a more extreme angle:

[Pierre]

For three obvious reasons Pierre.

Firstly, Dr Phillips was the first person who entered the room, along with the police, so he knew exactly how it looked before anyone had touched anything in that room.

Secondly, we don't know the exact time that MJK3 was taken and whether any of the furniture had been moved by this time.

Thirdly, due to the angle at which the photograph is taken, and the low quality of that photograph, it is not possible to accurately assess distance and locations and objects within that photograph.

Good, David. So then the statment of Dr Phillips could be very significant if you interpret it correctly:

"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".

Interpretation:

"On the door being opened it knocked against a table,"

= The table was in front of the entrance door.

"the table I found close to the left-hand side of the bedstead"

= The table was in front of the entrance door on the left-hand side of the bedstead and the bed was beside the table on the other side, with the head end on the right-hand side of the door.

"and the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition".

= With the head end on the right-hand side of the door, close up against the wooden partition.

[David Orsam]

Good, David. So then the statment of Dr Phillips could be very significant if you interpret it correctly:

"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".

Interpretation:

"On the door being opened it knocked against a table,"

= The table was in front of the entrance door.

"the table I found close to the left-hand side of the bedstead"

= The table was in front of the entrance door on the left-hand side of the bedstead and the bed was beside the table on the other side, with the head end on the right-hand side of the door.

"and the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition".

= With the head end on the right-hand side of the door, close up against the wooden partition.

Dr Phillips' statement does not require "interpretation", Pierre, because it is written in plain English.

The doctor does not use the phrase "head end"; that is a phrase you have plucked from thin air. Had he wanted to refer to the "head end" of the bed no doubt he would have done so but he did not.

What he was, in fact saying, was that the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition, the left hand side of the bedstead was close to the table and the table was close to the door (but not so close that the door would not open).

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;392007]

Dr Phillips' statement does not require "interpretation", Pierre, because it is written in plain English.

Great! You try to teach people to believe the text and to avoid thinking:

Dr Phillips' statement does not require "interpretation", Pierre, because it is written in plain English.

It is just like in ancient times. They looked at their environment and said:

The earth is flat.

Amen.

[David Orsam]

Great! You try to teach people to believe the text and to avoid thinking:

Dr Phillips' statement does not require "interpretation", Pierre, because it is written in plain English.

It is just like in ancient times. They looked at their environment and said:

The earth is flat.

Amen.

I don't really know what that means, Pierre, nor do I know what you mean by saying that I "try to teach people to believe the text". All I was doing what setting out in plain terms what the text actually says.

If you want to argue that it means something different to what it says that is up to you but at the very least you should be able to read and understand what it is saying properly.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Joshua, Wick. et al.

Based on the furniture placement in MJK1, the table looks like it could have been an obstruction. Not one that makes his cuts impossible, but an ostacle nonetheless. Standing at the edge of the table, i would think that the killer would have ,,kicked,, the tub with his foot. I d wonder if the table was moved aside the bed after he finished his work, and may have been used to brace the door or something similar.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;392011]

I don't really know what that means, Pierre, nor do I know what you mean by saying that I "try to teach people to believe the text". All I was doing what setting out in plain terms what the text actually says.

David. I am really sorry to breake this to you. But historians, social scientists, natural scientists, in fact all scientists, interpret objects.

A text is an object for interpretation.

There are also a lot of theories about interpretation and the conditions under which scientists, and also people in general, interpret objects.

There is no "setting out" in any "plain terms" what an object "actually means". There is interpretation.

I am truly sorry if I have been unfair to you, crediting you with understanding the issues I was talking about.

I understand now that you have (probably) never understood much from what I told you.

I truly do apologize for discussing historical matters with you, when you had no chance to understand them.

Sincere regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

David. I am really sorry to breake this to you. But historians, social scientists, natural scientists, in fact all scientists, interpret objects.[/B]

A text is an object for interpretation.

There are also a lot of theories about interpretation and the conditions under which scientists, and also people in general, interpret objects.

There is no "setting out" in any "plain terms" what an object "actually means". There is interpretation.

I am truly sorry if I have been unfair to you, crediting you with understanding the issues I was talking about.

I understand now that you have (probably) never understood much from what I told you.

I truly do apologize for discussing historical matters with you, when you had no chance to understand them.

You can write as much psychobabble as you want, Pierre, but the fact is that a sentence written in plain English which everyone who speaks English can understand does not require any "interpretation" and it certainly does not require interpretation from someone like you.

The sentence in question is this:

"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".

That is a clearly written sentence, being a sentence spoken by Dr Phillips and written into his deposition. It requires no form of interpretation, elaboration or amendment.

[Yabs]

Would jack really barricade the door?
If someone familiar with entering the room tried to enter and couldn't, the individual would look through the window see what was happening and no doubt have a small crowd there in seconds.
As that was jacks only exit surely it would be better to try and escape by barging past one shocked, unprepared and unarmed person rather than a group of alerted prepared people trying to force their way in?

He was probably quite willing to challenge physically anybody catching him in the act as he would have been faced with this had someone burst through the back door at Hanbury St.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Yabs.

Okay... maybe ,,barricading,, went too far. After all, it could be just some flimsy table that would,ve knocked over if the door was opened. However, explaining a secondary purpose for the table was secondary to my observation; that being, does the position of the table lengthwise along the bedside present ,an inconvenience, for a killer who is slicing off portions of Mary Jane,s face?

Could it be the ,furniture moving, sounds that were questioned about at the inquest was the movement of a table? It would be interesting to know if Barnett ever gave an account of the layout of No.13 Millers Court because i know i would,ve asked that question of him had i been an official or a reporter.