Suggestion

[DJA]

Surgeons donīt advice police, David.

Police advice divisional surgeons.

Pierre

The police took the advice.

Read up on the facts.

Incidentally Prater had her upstairs door barricaded with two two tables.
She mentions how thin the partition was and that light and sound was emitted.
Does not sound secure to me.

[David Orsam]

Surgeons donīt advice police, David.

Police advice divisional surgeons.

Those are two wholly inaccurate statements Pierre.

Surgeons possess specialist medical knowledge. The police possess no, or little, medical knowledge. So who do you think advises who on medical matters?

In case you are having difficulty with it, the answer is: the surgeons advise the police.

In this instance, Inspector Abberline would have known nothing or virtually nothing about how bloodhounds worked. Phillips obviously knew something because he said in his evidence at the inquest, 'probably it was advisable that no entrance should be made into the room at that time.'

On the basis that bloodhounds were coming, it was very sensible advice which was followed by Inspectors Beck and Abberline. It was only once Superintendent Arnold arrived and informed Abberline that the order as to the dogs had been countermanded that directions were given for the door to be forced. At the inquest, Inspector Abberline expressly confirmed Dr Phillips' evidence about the position of the table and the bed in the room.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

you have told us many times that you only deal only in data and facts from the period .

therefore:

1. What evidence do you have for your ideas about this door? is this more private data?

2. Can you tell us if the door opened into or out from the room?

3. If it opened inwards, the bed would have acted as a Barricade on this door too, Are you suggesting the bed was not normally against the wall?.

4. if so what EVIDENCE do you have for this?

5. Do you have evidence it was not boarded up as others have suggested?

6. If it was Boarded how did he remove the covering with out attracting attention, did he carry a crowbar or claw hammer?

7. You have told me that the police must have moved the bed back to the view in MJK1.
Why would the police move the bed in their own photo which was not for public consumption and therefore would not be used to hide evidence?

8. MJK3 is disputed, the Provence is unknown. Many suggest it is a fake. Have you read the thread by Simon Wood on this, he uses physics to suggest the position the bed was when this photo was taken. this does not agree with yours, so who is right?

9. Obviously this ties in with your statements that he tried to enter the upstairs room as well; again on behalf of many here i ask you what evidence you have for this?

10. You do not believe that MJK1 is an accurate rendition of the room as first found, is that a fair statement? Indeed you cannot accept it as this shows the door blocked by the bed. if it opened outward what evidence do you have that the police found clues in that area as you have suggested?

all I see in your Evidence is two photos in the public domain, 1 of which is disputed, even those who use it to support the theory that this was not the work a single lone killer accept the picture may have been doctored. Are you aware of this? i can almost hear you saying that as its not a primary source you ignore it!
your plan of the building whilst interesting is neither new nor proof of of your suggestion.

[Brenda]

.

If the bed was not up against the wall/door....how can the blood spatter on it be explained?

[Elamarna]

Brenda,

that’s obvious, the murderer put it there to fool the police.
sorry about that , but this is unreal

[Brenda]

.

The only other explanation would be....murderer enters, moves the bed against the door, THEN kills her, then moves the bed against the OTHER door to barricade.

Blood spatter doesn't lie, and should be considered a "primary data source".

[Elamarna]

The Third option Brenda, he came in by the main door, killed her as MJK1 and blood evidence suggested and left same way he entered.

sorry that’s the commonly accepted modern theory so it must be wrong!

[Brenda]

The Third option Brenda, he came in by the main door, killed her as MJK1 and blood evidence suggested and left same way he entered.

sorry that’s the commonly accepted modern theory so it must be wrong!

No....I am pretty sure that is EXACTLY how it happened.

He gets extra points for creativity though....

[DJA]

Blood spatter doesn't lie, and should be considered a "primary data source".

About 3 litres soaked into and through Mary's bedding.

After she bled out,there would not be that much elsewhere.

[Brenda]

About 3 litres soaked into and through Mary's bedding.

After she bled out,there would not be that much elsewhere.

It's all over the wall/door!

I think we have all agreed through the years that the wall/door has clear evidence of arterial spray. In fact, it may be one of the FEW things Ripperologists agree on

[Elamarna]

Sorry pierre,

I mentioned a thread with regards to the photos, i wrongly ascribed it to Simon Wood, when it should have been SGH. Simon However has done work on this too, i remember reading it but can't remember where.

[GUT]

Surgeons donīt advice police, David.

Police advice divisional surgeons.

Pierre

Shows you knowledge of police procedure.

[Wickerman]

Surgeons donīt advice police, David.

Police advice divisional surgeons.

Pierre

Pierre.

"...Dr Phillips asked me not to force the door but to test the dogs if they were coming,.."
Abberline, at the inquest.

While it is true that the police take possession of the crime scene, any ingress or egress by anyone other than police is by police permission only, the police are open to professional opinion.
Dr Phillips was a police surgeon, they work together as a team.

When a professional man offers advise, justified by a reason, then an officer may bow to his request in respect of his professional position.
Which appears to be the case in this example. And, in this example the Inspector, on his arrival, made the final decision.

A surgeon may only advise police, given the fact the police have the final say.

[Pierre]

Pierre.

...While it is true that the police take possession of the crime scene, any ingress or egress by anyone other than police is by police permission only,

A surgeon may only advise police, given the fact the police have the final say....

I agree.

But letīs not go into discussion about who decided what on the crime scene.

The point is that there must have been a reason for the statement of Abberline at the inquest and that there are reasons to believe that this reason has to do with circumstances at this crime scene that the police did not want to share with the public.

These circumstances are easy to understand to when you interpret the material, that is MJK1, MJK 3 and the apartment plan for Dorset Street.

Just beacuse the police did not give the information about the door between the shed and Maryīs room doesnīt mean it wasnīt there.

I think the police wanted the public to think what you now think and this has led to the wrong history about the murder of Mary Jane Kelly.

Of course, this is common within history writing.

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

Regards Pierre

[DJA]

I agree.

But letīs not go into discussion about who decided what on the crime scene.

You clearly have little real knowledge.

I believe Dr. Phillips knew who the Ripper was and wanted the case investigated properly.

His evidence given at the inquests remains important.
Well worth a read!

He was not alone in recognising anatomical knowledge and/or technical skill.

Abberline,on the other hand,should have known the were no bloody hounds!