Suggestion

[Mayerling]

I must have missed something - if Mary Kelly was in the habit of inviting her "johns" (or in this case "jacks") into her room for business purposes, why would she be moving furniture around to bar doors of entrance or egress to the room?

As for the fact that the "winners" always write the histories we get at the end, first much of what we consider written history (paper or papyrus manuscripts) have to survive more than man made disasters (burnings of books, war bombings). They also have to survive fires, volcanic eruptions, floods, shipwrecks, and other disasters, but occasionally something does turn up showing a fragment of what we lost due to time. Secondly, liars do sometimes manage to create their legends that briefly are absorbed by a willing local populace. The recent assault on Woodrow Wilson's reputation (somewhat deserved) for his anti-Black racism, includes his five volume history of the United States which included a respecting nod towards the usefulness of the Ku Klux Klan in keeping down the former slaves in the South. That is now believed by only fanatical white supremacists. The so-called "stab-in-the-back" theory of the defeat of Wilhelmine Germany in 1918 was pushed in "Mein Kampf" by Hitler, and "The Myth of the 20th Century" by Hitler's "philosopher of Nazism", "Dr." Alfred Rosenberg. Most people no longer believe them and their views on how Jews betrayed Germany, or how the Slavs and Jews and Gypsies were racially inferior types. Only the far-right fanatics do.

Somehow I keep thinking that we may be in for the creation of "The Myth of 1888" in the future.

Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

The door used to create the partition wall is on the r/h side of the photo. The head of the bed was almost against the exterior wall that separated the room from the courtyard, and the bed is a few inches from the partition wall on the right. There are no photos from the foot of the bed to review, but there may well have been some taken. Some of the original plates were marked with a numerical reference, and on one I recall it was one of a group of six taken....I believe the notation was 2 of 6.

The shot across Marys empty midsection may have been taken with a remote shutter, the camera may have been placed on the bedding that is stuffed down between the bed and the partition wall, by the lower half of the bed, and activated by using a remote shutter out of view, like a squeeze bulb. Alternatively it could have been placed there and activated with a hand operated shutter with the photographer placing the camera and ducking down on the left side of the bed out of frame. There was no room between the bed and that wall to have a photographer stand or crouch there.

What we can say regarding some of what is being discussed is that there was no functional door between Marys room and the staircase up, and that there were more photos taken than we have been given the opportunity to view.

[D.B.Wagstaff]

The winners write history, they decide what we must think and in the end we loose our own capacity of free thinking.

Regards Pierre[/QUOTE]

Who exactly was the "winner" that wrote the "history" here? It looks to me like the only person who "won" was Jack (not getting caught) and he certainly had nothing to do with the police reports, the photographer's vantage point, or the coroner's inquest.

The capacity to think freely is not doomed in the end as long as the individual reserves it for themselves. Free thinking is not necessarily defined by taking a particular point of view - conventional or non-conventional.

[Elamarna]

Since the far post of the bed head is level almost with the door in the partition, the bottom of the bed is away from the wall (as Pierre suggests) and the bed is at an angle.

l.

Hi MysterySinger,
how do you judge that the bottom of the bed is away from the wall?
I see nothing in any of the various copies of MJK1 which show this

[David Orsam]

The coroner asked Prater if she had heard any beds or tables beeing pulled around.

For someone claiming to approach this subject in a scientific way, your comment here is remarkably unscientific because you have ignored the obvious, and indeed the actual, explanation.

As Dr Phillips testified, when the entrance door was opened, it knocked against a table. Doors do not normally knock against tables when opened. The obvious inference was that someone - presumably the killer - had moved some of the furniture around inside the room. THAT is why the coroner asked Prater if she had heard any of the furniture being moved around.

Your suggestion that the coroner was given secret information about the layout of the furniture which he withheld from his jury and allowed Dr Phillips and Inspector Abberline to conspire to perjure themselves in the witness box by giving false evidence at his inquest, thus deliberately misleading his jury, is completely and utterly ludicrous.

[MysterySinger]

Here is a question for you regarding the interior "door", whether functional or not doesn't matter here - do you think it was quite central on the partition wall or on the right as you view (e.g. fixed to the interior wall at the alley/court end)>

I had assumed that MJK's bed was in a corner on photo 1 - side against the partition, bed head against a wall. Now I'm not sure at all. Since the far post of the bed head is level almost with the door in the partition, the bottom of the bed is away from the wall (as Pierre suggests) and the bed is at an angle.

In fact exactly as suggested in MJK3. For this supposition, it also doesn't matter who moved the bed into that position (Police or JTR for example). It also chimes with this..

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/room-13-millers-court.html

and would indicate that what is in the photo, behind the bed head is still partitioning - originally something like this some time before? For partitioning you could read cladding since this was, presumably, a load bearing wall.

[David Orsam]

Then he moved the table and the bed wih the dead body on it to barricade the entrance door before performing the mutilations.

It is worth repeating that there is no evidence for the entrance door being barricaded - in fact, the evidence is very clear that it was not - nor any reason to think it might have been.

[David Orsam]

Yes, I know. So I think it is unlikely.

Goodness, so it seems you agree with my #170 in which I said:

"If we are even bolder, we could hypothesize that you are talking nonsense".

We are making progress.

[Michael W Richards]

Ive been amazed at how much discussion has been focused on something that was dealt with many, many posts ago. Pierres insistence that the partition wall had a door that could be opened isn't viable, there is no framing on that door for one, so, no way to mount to swing in or out, and it has the faded numbers 26 on it, which indicates as the press stated that it was originally the street facing door...or the shed at the time. Marys room was 10 x 10 also.

The door was used as material for a partition wall, the doorway that Pierres speaking of connected the original house salon....which became Marys room..to the hallway that had the rising staircase and the exit door inside the passage. The salon wouldn't have had a door, like almost any Victorian design..it was a salon for use by the house resident or residents.

[RockySullivan]

If number 26 was actually used for costermongers barrows, I would suggest a connection to the barrow making at dutfield yard and their loft

[Elamarna]

Yes see what you mean.

Indeed just to the right of this object there appears to be a vertical line, could this be a crease in a curtain? again if you work your way across that panel there is another line which could be a fold.crease.
The lower line Pierre interprets as a hinge could be the bottom of a window, and would explain why the strip does not continue in lower part of image.

If that is in fact the door (where the object is) i assume the latch is obscured. by items on the table.

This I think has as much viability at Pierre's interpretation of the picture.

Again, with out the plate to inspect it is difficult to pass any real judgement.
regards

steve

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Elamarna.
I havent received much response from the board on this:

Do you see a knob or "ball shaped" thing in the upper left corner? I have been wondering if the vertical crack of liggt is light that shining thru the broken pane window. The crack of light you see at the edge of the blinds when they are pulled shut.

[Elamarna]

an observation on MJK3

with regards the strip of light which Pierre says is light coming in the side of the door and shows the hinges and Which Simon Wood in his dissertation says is something else coming from the ceiling.

Do people notice that although there is very limited space between the bottom edge of the table and the victims knee there is an area which must represent the door under the table. There is no light strip visible in that area
which one would expect to see.

This would lend weight to the suggestion this is not light from the crack in the door frame. it could well be an artefact created during printing.

However without being able to view the plate that the image was recorded onto it is very hard to go one way or the other.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello All.
Obviously this doesnt prove anything one way or t'other; still...

In andy Aliffes dissrtation on Kitty Ronan, it describes "Lottie" as now residing in Mary Kellys room a few years later and how the walls were stained black with blood. It doesnt say anything about a partition door, just the walls.

[Elamarna]

Dear Pierre

"The entrance door was barricaded by the table and bed so the police could not get in through that door and used the door between 26 and 13.

You can see that on MJK3."

You have not proved that MJK3 shows that.

The position of the table in relation to the door is dependent on the door being opened or closed something given the limited image you are scientifically unable to resolve I believe.
.
Similarly you have not proved that MJK1 was taken after the bed was moved back. You are not the first to suggest this, but no proof has ever been produced.


You Refer to the drawing of the boarded up 26 often, but please note this is a sketch, it is not photographic evidence. It is obviously meant to portray the area either on the day of the murder or in the few days afterwards. there is certainly no way of confirming it is a 100% accurate representation of the scene at a set time.

I also note that you have suggested, ( not sure how serious you are) MJK1 could show blood splatter around where the killer stood, to use your own words:
"Then we could interprete this area as the shadow of Jack the Ripper:"

Do I interpret this correctly, you are suggesting the killer would have been covered in blood himself?


Your theory that the room was entered by the side door is both interesting and creative. it certainly deserves to be investigated as far as the available evidence allows.

That evidence appears to be:

1. YOUR interpretation of the 2 photographs.

2.The evidence given at the Kelly inquest which you believe is not 100% accurate

3. A sketch from a newspaper

3. Evidence left behind which we are not aware of

You like to often say scientific and scientifically, unfortunate none of the above is scientific. it is opinion. That does not mean that others should not listen and consider carefully what you propose. we should, and then draw our own conclusions based on evidence or lack of it.

I do however object to your use of the word scientific to stress your opinions , Having been employed in the British University sector as a scientist for some 35 years, please believe me that one would not last long using the word as you do without being severely criticised by one colleagues.
Finally i note you have started to say "our" hypotheses rather than "my" and "The"

I have attempted to be as open to your ideas as possible but until you provide evidence it is hard to take many of your propositions seriously, no matter how interesting they are.