Suggestion

[RockySullivan]

I think Jerry's Coal room theory is more plausible

[Wickerman]

Off-topic.

Wifey is very excited too, Tut is one of her side interests. Australian Convict children and Tudor England are her first loves and formed he basis of her Honours Thesis and PhD.

I recall it was believed that Tut's tomb was what the Vizier Aye had organised for himself, being a nobleman. The tomb is about the right size for a nobelman.
With Tut dying prematurely, Aye's tomb was appropriated, which, if we now revise our thinking that the tomb was actually Nefetiti's, presents the same problems - it's just too small for a royal tomb.
Unless, as Steve suggests, there are other undiscovered rooms.

[Elamarna]

I fear you will just get spun, and if you do manage to pin him down he will give you same answer in gave me on his last reply to me.

From what I understand of his theory , the bed was against the wall, he opened the door outward into number 26, reached in, cut Kellys throat, who slept while the door was being opened. he told me it had to be like this . i quote from post 100 on this thread from him:

"It was against the wall since there was blood on the floor from cutting her throat. And how would Mary otherwise have gotten into the room..."

I am not sure i understand the last sentence.

Pierre then suggested the bed and table were moved to act as a barricade and only then did the mutilations start.
He then believes the murderer left by the side door, closed it on leaving. Finally some police officials moved the bed back for MJK1 after taking MJK3. he does not seem to be willing to say why the bed was moved back.

that i think sums it up Brenda

[Wickerman]

I think Jerry's Coal room theory is more plausible

They didn't have chimney's though Rocky, not to mention a fireplace.

[Wickerman]

I fear you will just get spun, and if you do manage to pin him down he will give you same answer in gave me on his last reply to me.

From what I understand of his theory , the bed was against the wall, he opened the door outward into number 26, reached in, cut Kellys throat, who slept while the door was being opened. he told me it had to be like this . i quote from post 100 on this thread from him:

"It was against the wall since there was blood on the floor from cutting her throat. And how would Mary otherwise have gotten into the room..."

I am not sure i understand the last sentence.

Pierre then suggested the bed and table were moved to act as a barricade and only then did the mutilations start.
He then believes the murderer left by the side door, closed it on leaving. Finally some police officials moved the bed back for MJK1 after taking MJK3. he does not seem to be willing to say why the bed was moved back.

that i think sums it up Brenda

I think it merely qualifies as a misreading of the evidence rather than a new interpretation, but hey, that's just me.

[IchabodCrane]

[Bowyer] continued: There was a curtain. I put my hand through the broken pane and lifted the curtain. I saw two pieces of flesh lying on the table.
[Coroner] Where was this table ? - In front of the bed, close to it. The second time I looked I saw a body on this bed, and blood on the floor.

Not: next to the bed, as it would have appeared to Bowyer looking through the window in Pierre's moved tables and beds scenario.

So in this theory, Bowyer, McCarthy, Philips and Abberline are devising a scheme to misinform the coroner and the public about the position in which the bed was in the room and how access was gained to the room.

And the cover-up works out perfectly: all four statements corroborate each other: the bed was against the wall and the room was entered into by forcing the main door! No mention of room no 26!

Only that 127 years later, in a future world of global interconnectivity and limitless access to information, a master sleuth/historian discovered the truth and uncovered the conspiracy simply by interpreting old floor plans and photographs.

[Wickerman]

[Bowyer] continued: There was a curtain. I put my hand through the broken pane and lifted the curtain. I saw two pieces of flesh lying on the table.
[Coroner] Where was this table ? - In front of the bed, close to it. The second time I looked I saw a body on this bed, and blood on the floor.

Not: next to the bed, as it would have appeared to Bowyer looking through the window in Pierre's moved tables and beds scenario.

So in this theory, Bowyer, McCarthy, Philips and Abberline are devising a scheme to misinform the coroner and the public about the position in which the bed was in the room and how access was gained to the room.

And the cover-up works out perfectly: all four statements corroborate each other: the bed was against the wall and the room was entered into by forcing the main door! No mention of room no 26!

Only that 127 years later, in a future world of global interconnectivity and limitless access to information, a master sleuth/historian discovered the truth and uncovered the conspiracy simply by interpreting old floor plans and photographs.

Your just jealous you didn't think it!

[Elamarna]

Wickerman,

the idea it was originally cut for Ay is just a theory, there are no burial deposits outside the tomb for Him, it as just been assumed. I
f there is just one more chamber beyond the present burial chamber and a sealed store room off of the current one it is comparable to many of the tombs of queens and princes in the valley of the queens. it is considerably larger than nobles tombs in the valley of the kings such as Yuya and Tjuya. sorry off topic again

[IchabodCrane]

Your just jealous you didn't think it!

Yes, stupid me, it was so obvious! The door in the wall was there all along for all to see, and the statements just matching too exactly to be true! We all felt there was something wrong with them. Congratulations to Pierre!

[Brenda]

.

I fear you will just get spun, and if you do manage to pin him down he will give you same answer in gave me on his last reply to me.

From what I understand of his theory , the bed was against the wall, he opened the door outward into number 26, reached in, cut Kellys throat, who slept while the door was being opened. he told me it had to be like this .

that i think sums it up Brenda

That Mary sure was a very sound sleeper!

If he reached in like that to cut Mary's throat, then he risked being covered in the spray of blood if she were facing his direction. And if she were facing in the other direction, the spray would have been in the opposite direction.

I'm starting to wonder if Jack was truly a lust serial killer or if his true passion was moving furniture.

[Elamarna]

Wikerman,

i see it as a new interpretation, and if there is evidence to back it up who knows it may be the truth.
The problems i see at the moment are:

1. the suggestion that not only Abberline but Beck and Phillips perjured themselves.

2. the reason for moving the bed back for the police photo.

3. the apparent lack of evidence to back this up

the only reason for 1 would be to hide evidence, . the only reason i can think of for 2 is to mislead the inquest Jury.i

those are my main concerns

[Elamarna]

Brenda, if it were done like that and she was facing him, there would be no wall to take the blood splatter, it must have gone close to the murder and out into the lobby of 26. there you go that must be Pierre’s evidence.t

[Brenda]

Brenda, if it were done like that and she was facing him, there would be no wall to take the blood splatter, it must have gone close to the murder and out into the lobby of 26. there you go that must be Pierre’s evidence.t

Exactly. He could not have reached in and cut her throat, as the wall has the evidence of the spray. Thus the whole scenario falls apart...unless we are back to the killer moving the bed out of the way, coming in, moving the bed back, then killing Mary....yadda yadda.

I want Pierre to explain this, but I am not holding my breath.

[Pcdunn]

Just a few observations:

The witness comment that when the main door was opened, it "knocked against" the table, does not suggest to me that the table is there as a "barricade"-- merely that Mary's room was rather small, and the door when fully opened hit on the table (presumably the same table seen in the MJK1 photograph as being NEXT to the head of the bed). Perhaps if we could figure out the approximate size (width) of the door, we could calculate the distance from the door to the bed. We might also want to consider if the door opened inward to the right or to the left.

As for the witness comment that the table was "in front" of the bed... Well, does this agree with the positioning seen in the photograph? I think it might be interpreted that "next" and "in front of" could describe the same thing. My only concern is what is the viewpoint of the witness who said this: is he looking in from the window, or from the opened door? Because as I imagine it, if he sees the table "in front of" the bed while looking in from the window, that suggests the table is between the window and the bed-- and doesn't agree with the MJK1 photograph.

I think there is blood depicted in the MJK1 photograph on the partition that her bed was up against. I think this is likely the best evidence against the idea that the door forming part of the partition was a working door into another room.

Finally, older texts in English from Shakespeare's time onwards sometimes use the word "apartment" to mean a bedroom or bed-chamber. The current meaning as a self-contained living space is of much more recent vintage.

[Rosella]

The rooms in McCarthy's rents were tiny really, 12 feet by 8 feet. You can imagine it being a bit crowded with several large policemen and the doctor inside!

With regard to the front room of No. 26, (the room used as a storeroom) the Evening Express of 12 November noted 'The room was formerly left open and poor people often took shelter there for the night but when the Whitechapel murders caused so much alarm the police thought the place offered too much temptation to the murderer and so the front was securely boarded up'.