Window Removal

[Wickerman]

I suggested some time ago, that one possibility for taking out a bit of the window was that the space was so confined within the room that there was room for the camera, but not the photographer. It would have made sense to put the camera inside the room, which would fit in with the crime scene photo, whilst the photographer stood outside, bending through the window, to actually take the photo.

Jane.
If you read the inquest testimony by Dr Phillips you will see he takes the reader almost step by step through the events that happened at Millers Court from the time when he arrived, and possession of the scene was in the hands of Insp. Beck, until the arrival of Supt. Arnold.
The Doctor tried the door, it being locked, he then looked through the broken window pains. The Doctor then states:
"Having ascertained that probably it was advisable that no entrance should be made into the room at that time, I remained until about 1:30, when the door was broken open, by M'Carthy I believe. I know he was waiting with a pickaxe to break open the door, and I believe he did it. The direction to break open the door was given by Superintendent Arnold."

Insp. Abberline's testimony was in effect:
"He (Abberline) did not break open the door as Inspector Beck told him that the bloodhounds had been sent for and were on the way, and Dr. Phillips said it would be better not to break open the door until the dogs arrived."

The first action Supt. Arnold dictated was to enter the room as the bloodhounds were not to arrive afterall.

The statements of Phillips & Abberline make it clear that both officials insisted that no entry should be made. The reason for this is to preserve the scent, because the dogs are being brought.
Removing windows will not preserve the scent, or at least will inhibit the preservation of the scent.
There's no logical argument for believeing Supt. Arnold ordered the removal of any windows. Prior to the arrival of Arnold the room was contained to preserve the scent, on Arnold's arrival at 1:30 pm, the preservation was still required. This changed when Arnold received the message that the dog's were no longer being brought. At this point Arnold ordered the breaking open of the door.
The story in the press which suggests the removal of a window has a rather confused sequence, probably an editorial error.

Photographing the body.
We do have a sketch showing the body being photographed. If this had been done from the outside, through the window as you suggested, then why do you think they show it this way?
(Photo, courtesy of Evans & Skinner)

[Wickerman]

Hello Philip
One reason may be that it was done to aid visibilty for the Doctors and Police who were to spend the rest of that November afternoon in the crime scene.

The doctors can't do anything through an open window, they all gained entry to begin their examination, as is demonstrated thus:

[Jane Coram]

A window pain and a half

Hi Wickerman,

The story in the press which suggests the removal of a window has a rather confused sequence, probably an editorial error.

I think that you are almost certainly correct there. It does seem a strange thing to report on if it didn't happen at all, as it's got a certain ring of authenticity to it, but the information is very vague, which might suggest that they weren't too sure of the facts themselves. As you pointed out, the primary source material always has to take precedence over a newspaper report anyway -- so I reckon you've hit the nail on the head there.

If there is any truth in the report, it would seem far more sensible for the police to gain access, and then remove part of the window, whatever their reason for doing so.

During the discussion before we were just throwing out ideas as to why the window might have been removed, and the suggestion I made that it might have been to give the photographer more room to manoeuvre, was just an idle thought and not meant as anything more than a bit of speculation, following some other posts about photographing the crime scene.

I think some of the other suggestions were pretty good ones.... that it was to give better ventilation, (big tick on that one) to give more light to those working inside, or to make it easier to pass things in and out of the room, which I suppose would include the photographer's equipment. If the table was still pushed against the door as the reports indicate, then it might have been very hard to get things in and out without bumping into something unmentionable! If the sash of the window was broken, it would have been much safer to take it out altogether rather than getting their fingers crushed everytime it fell down.

As to the newspaper sketch of the crime scene that you posted, a bit of artistic license there by the looks of it! The room wasn't nearly as large as it appears in that sketch, although there are far worse offenders than that one for making Mary's room look like a luxory apartment in Mayfair. Just take a look at this one!

Bestest

Jane

xxxx

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Couple of things on the windows, if you get to see a good quality image of them you'll note that the one closest to the corner, and therefore the spring latch, had I believe 5-3 pane rows, and the broken panes were...one at the second row from the bottom right, and the second I think close to or at the top left. I believe those are correct, but I dont have that image on this computer to do a quick check.

Secondly, when the room was "forcibly entered", both windows were locked from the inside, as was the door. The door could just have been set to lock by the killer when leaving.

Why didnt they use the window/spring latch method that both Barnett and apparently Abberline knew before 1:30pm that day, when they supposedly enter for the first time, and why are city constables in that courtyard at all...where are the missing photos we know were taken, and were the windows covered with the muslin curtains when they took them ? We have time of day data that we could use in MJK3 better if we knew some of that.

Elizabeth Prater said she saw Mary throruh the window in the early afternoon when she came into the courtyard for water...so they were open at some point anyway.

Best regards all.

[Wickerman]

I think some of the other suggestions were pretty good ones.... that it was to give better ventilation, (big tick on that one) to give more light to those working inside, or to make it easier to pass things in and out of the room,...

Hi Jane.
Yes, that point reminds me. I once suggested one possible reason for removing one window.
I took a plan view scale drawing of the room at Millers Court, and the passage entrance.
Her door opened directly facing a wall only about 3(?) feet away.
I remember we read Mary's body was removed in a shell of a coffin. It occured to me, "how would they manouver a 6 foot long box out of a room facing a wall 3 feet away?"
Perhaps that was one reason to remove a window after all the investigation was done, to pass her body/coffin out of the room?
But this has nothing to do with explaining the news article.

Regards, Jon.S.

[Mike Covell]

Is it possible that the broken pieces of glass from the smashed window were removed to check for any signs of material, blood, or flesh?

If a hand was put through the broken glass, it is possible that some clue might have been left behind.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Gang,

I was just trawling through the papers and stumbled on this which seems quite relevant in this discussion.

From the Scotsman 10th November:

Previous to the post mortem examination, a photographer who was brought on the scene, after considerable difficulty and delay, was set to work in the court and house with a view to obtaining permanent evidence as to the state of the room and the condition of the body. The state of the atmosphere was, unfortunately, not favourable to good results. A slight drizzling rain was falling, and the air was dusky. Even in the open thoroughfares, and in the little court it was at times almost dark, especially inside the houses. The photographer, however, did his best, and succeeded in securing several negatives, which he hopes will be useful.

This suggests a few things to me. Firstly that it was very dark in the room, and removing part of the window might have given them a bit of extra light,
secondly it seems to be that the poor photographer did have a devil of a job getting set up, and the difficulty and delay mentioned might have been something to do with getting the equipment into the room or positioning it, hence the need to remove the window.

There was one other sentence in the report that might have a bearing on the window: (Speaking about the police officers here)

They did not care to remain longer than was necessary to note accurately the position of the body, the general appearance of the apartment, and the character of the principal mutilations.

Removing the window would have given them more ventilation in the room as well and it certainly sounded as if they needed it!

Right back to work. Lol.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[George Hutchinson]

Hi Jon S

You ask why the illustration would show the photographer in the room if that hadn't happened.

I answer have a look at the illustration and tell me how many errors you can see. We should never trust the illustrations to give any more than a passing indication - and it could also be that the illustrator was working from an erroneous report. He certainly would not have been on site sketching away as it was done.

I've read nothing here that would change my opinion that the window was not removed. Although all the reasons could be valid, it seems a remarkably major thing to have done for almost no necessity.

PHILIP

[Jon Guy]

The doctors can't do anything through an open window, they all gained entry to begin their examination, as is demonstrated thus:

I posted that the removal would aid visibility, as it would have done

[Bailey]

I would expect that the reference to the photographer having difficulty would relate to several things - finding room to set up a tripod in the small, cramped room, getting a good position, allowing for having a fixed lens which means you can only be so close, but most importantly the lack of light.

Even with modern equipment, to take a full length photo of a body on a bed in such a small and dim room, you'd need a reasonably wide angle lens, a tripod and a longish exposure - it wouldn't be as quick and simple as just "click," although if they had some sort of flash technology - no idea on that. RJM? - then maybe it'd be simpler, but the photos as I've seen them don't look like they're lit by flash, with the possible exception of MJK3, which has some bright highlights.

B.

B.

[Jon Guy]

Hello B.

Just in case you are interested "Ripperologist" featured an interesting article on the photography angle.flashes etc etc

Sorry, cannot remember which Rip it was in.

Maybe someone else can help on that score, or mail the gang Rip.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

The article in question was in Ripperologist 80 - June 2007

and was called: 'Photographing Miller’s Court'

I remember it particularly as it was the first article I did the artwork for, and I thoroughly enjoyed it!

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[perrymason]

Hi all,

There were I believe at least 3 types of camera's and focal methods available at the time of the pictures, all with glass plates. There were even the first handheld models in London at that time, but I dont think thats applicable here.

You could either frame and focus using the rear viewfinder, from above, like was used in early portrait style photos, or there was also a remote shutter, a squeeze bulb activated one, so you could place your camera on a desk for example, and photograph yourself.

That bulb style, and a 10 x 10 room approximately, might have been a good marriage.

Best regards all.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon S

You ask why the illustration would show the photographer in the room if that hadn't happened.

I answer have a look at the illustration and tell me how many errors you can see. We should never trust the illustrations to give any more than a passing indication - and it could also be that the illustrator was working from an erroneous report. He certainly would not have been on site sketching away as it was done....

Philip.
I've posted on that same matter elsewhere, these woodcut graphics were only intended to be representational, not to be taken as photographic evidence.
The question we must ask is, "what is this print representing here?"

Quite obviously the same artists could easily have drawn a box camera positioned through a window, the incidental details do not need to be totally accurate just to get the point across.
The scene was drawn the way it was because thats what the story was. The camera and photographer were in the room together.

What intrigues me is this, why bother to pursue an argument when the meagre evidence that does exist does not support your argument. Not only that but what evidence we do have actually contradicts your argument.

- The only print that does exist argues against your suggestion.
- Testimony by the officials at the scene is consistent with their intent to preserve the scene intact, preserve the scent for the dogs, do not open up the room.
- The Times story that started this 'window removal' matter is badly confused from a chronological point of view.

I know, you like a challenge, right?

[George Hutchinson]

Hi, Jon. Yeah, I like a challenge. Not too bothered about non-starters, though.

PHILIP