Suggestion

[Michael W Richards]

No. It doesn't.

Pierre

Your theory as explained by you does require access through a wall that had no access, so yeah, it does.

[Pierre]

Your theory as explained by you does require access through a wall that had no access, so yeah, it does.

No. It doesn‘t depend on that at all. That is just a suggestion.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

No. It doesn‘t depend on that at all. That is just a suggestion.

Read Michael's post carefully Pierre. He said "Your theory as explained by you does require access to a wall that had no access".

He is entirely correct. You have put forward - "suggested" if you like - a theory that the killer entered Mary's apartment through the partition wall. That is the theory as explained by you. So your theory does require access to a wall that had no access.

Furthermore, although you now say it was "just a suggestion", it is something you have clearly believed to be the case as, for example, in #74 you said:

"Just because (sic) the police did not give the information about the door between the shed and Mary´s room doesn´t mean it wasn´t there.
I think the police wanted the public to think what you now think and t<script id="gpt-impl-0.7220943406087183" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_76.js"></script>his has led to the wrong history about the murder of Mary Jane Kelly."

While I can see why you now want to distance yourself from this, it was clearly something you thought was correct. Indeed, you believed you had discovered the true history about the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. Rather more than "just a suggestion".

[Robert]

I haven't been reading this thread so I dare say this point has already been made : if there was an entrance to the room via the partition, why break open the door?

[David Orsam]

I haven't been reading this thread so I dare say this point has already been made : if there was an entrance to the room via the partition, why break open the door?

I don't think it's been specifically addressed Robert but I assume Pierre would say (or, to the extent that he has now lost faith in his theory, would have said) that the evidence in respect of the breaking open of the door was all false and part of the convoluted cover-up which involved not only the doctors and the police but also members of the public like McCarthy.

[Robert]

Ah, I see. Devilishly cunning!

[Pierre]

I haven't been reading this thread so I dare say this point has already been made : if there was an entrance to the room via the partition, why break open the door?

Hi Robert,

Or why wait for the famous dogs, thinking they would arrive, before breaking open the door? Why not break open the door before the dogs arrived, so the dogs could immediately get into the room and do their work?

And why did the police wait for more than two hours before entering the room?

What did they do during this time?

And what did Abberline say they did?

Thanks by the way for posting this, you gave me an idea. I will analyze Abberline´s testimony in the Kelly inquest.

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Back to a reality based observation, the shot that started this thread is across Marys abdomen from the r/h side of her bed, (from the partition wall perspective), and across the nighttable. That suggests the streak of light behind it is from the door....open a crack. The door swung inward, and the latch was on the left side of the inside of the door. It would therefore open a large amount before contacting the dining table under the window, enough to allow people to enter. If the killer left via the door, then he couldn't have placed the nightatble in a position that would inhibit access..which leads me to conclude that the door did not need "forcing" open at all.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Robert,

Or why wait for the famous dogs, thinking they would arrive, before breaking open the door? Why not break open the door before the dogs arrived, so the dogs could immediately get into the room and do their work?

And why did the police wait for more than two hours before entering the room?

What did they do during this time?

And what did Abberline say they did?

Thanks by the way for posting this, you gave me an idea. I will analyze Abberline´s testimony in the Kelly inquest.

Regards Pierre

This murder site offered a unique opportunity due to the limited access to the courtyard...and it may be the first murder scene in criminal history that was completely locked down in order to examine the scene forensically. Court residents were kept in their rooms. Photographers were summoned,...lead investigators on the Unsolved murders in Whitechapel were summoned, additional officers for crowd control, medical experts, etc.....although I feel that its likely the room was actually entered befrore the official time given, I don't believe there is suppression or conspiracy evidence here...just secrecy. Considering the grotesquerie in room 13, far more appalling than any other Unsolved murder case, I can see why they would want to handle this without bystanders.

As for Abberline, you will discover quickly that his opinion that there was a great fire on that night is discounted by the courtyard testimonies.

I cant tell you what to believe Pierre, but the partition wall did not offer access to Marys room. it segregated the room from the house, becoming a room of the courtyard.

[David Orsam]

Or why wait for the famous dogs, thinking they would arrive, before breaking open the door? Why not break open the door before the dogs arrived, so the dogs could immediately get into the room and do their work?

It must have taken all of two seconds for the door to be broken open once the order was given by Superintendent Arnold. As Dr Phillips had already advised that no entrance be made to the room before the dogs arrived, there would have been no purpose in breaking the door open before then.

And why did the police wait for more than two hours before entering the room?

You have already answered this in your first question. They were waiting for the dogs to arrive.

What did they do during this time?

They waited.

And what did Abberline say they did?

He said they remained outside Millers Court.

There you go Pierre, all your questions answered for you.

[paul g]

so far

So far on various threads we have theory's/suggestions forwarded by Pierre.

CLAIM 1.
"The killer wrote a letter to a newspaper stating clearly the name May Kelly would be his next victim".
ACTUAL FACT IS HE DID NOT WRITE IN THE LETTER THE NAME MARY KELLY.

CLAIM 2.
The killer entered Mary,s room via a partition/hidden door.
ACTUAL FACT IS HE DID NOT ENTER THROUGH HIDDEN DOOR.

So far Pierre in a few threads you have led us to believe that Mary was named prior to her murder in a letter to a newspaper and by the end of the thread you back tracked to say she was,nt actually named but her name was hidden similar to a anagram that even Suzi Dent would struggle to locate.
Then we get the hidden door scenario but by the end of the thread it was just a suggestion, once again backtracking once it was clearly established that what you stated at the start of your thread was not correct.

Suggest you start a thread next on motive which you claim to know may as well blow holes in that too.
I think come the time when your research is finished your theory will be non existent and irrelevant you will end up proposing the chuckle brothers as the murderers
WALOS.

[GUT]

So far on various threads we have theory's/suggestions forwarded by Pierre.

CLAIM 1.
"The killer wrote a letter to a newspaper stating clearly the name May Kelly would be his next victim".
ACTUAL FACT IS HE DID NOT WRITE IN THE LETTER THE NAME MARY KELLY.

CLAIM 2.
The killer entered Mary,s room via a partition/hidden door.
ACTUAL FACT IS HE DID NOT ENTER THROUGH HIDDEN DOOR.

So far Pierre in a few threads you have led us to believe that Mary was named prior to her murder in a letter to a newspaper and by the end of the thread you back tracked to say she was,nt actually named but her name was hidden similar to a anagram that even Suzi Dent would struggle to locate.
Then we get the hidden door scenario but by the end of the thread it was just a suggestion, once again backtracking once it was clearly established that what you stated at the start of your thread was not correct.

Suggest you start a thread next on motive which you claim to know may as well blow holes in that too.
I think come the time when your research is finished your theory will be non existent and irrelevant you will end up proposing the chuckle brothers as the murderers
WALOS.

What has been clearly established is that Pierre is full of BS.

But I knew that from their first post.