Prater's stairs

[Elamarna]

Wickerman is thinking in the line of forensic history. He does not merely have an "opinion". And this thinking constitutes the most accurate way of handling these sources.

Regards Pierre

How am I disagreeing with him? He said it was unlikely, not impossible.

I am fully prepared to accept what he says is probably accurate, and indeed have said so in my posts
And sorry, it is still an opinion.

[Elamarna]

There's a lot of detail and contrast (in the "close-up" photo at least) that suggests to me a longer exposure than normal in natural light.

If we were working from the original plate I would agree entirely.
However we are looking at a reprint or a reprint, We cannot know if the print has been tweaked in the dark room. Having the original would make life so much easier.

Either way, it could have been taken late around 4pm with a long exposure as you say, but surely they would have used some artificial light?

regards

steve

[Pierre]

I have,,
that is Wickermans opinion, the times are probably correct, but the photos could have been taken at the start of the post mortem.
Even if they were taken after 4pm, all that means is that artificial light was used, a position i have been constant on.

Sorry Pierre, you don't know what light was used, unless of course you have some documentation to say it was natural light.

Wickerman is thinking in the line of forensic history. He does not merely have an "opinion". And this thinking constitutes the most accurate way of handling these sources.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi,

Everybody and especially Steve: Read what Wickerman is writing here.

Regards Pierre

I have,,
that is Wickermans opinion, the times are probably correct, but the photos could have been taken at the start of the post mortem.
Even if they were taken after 4pm, all that means is that artificial light was used, a position i have been constant on.

Sorry Pierre, you don't know what light was used, unless of course you have some documentation to say it was natural light.

[Pierre]

Itīs OK Steve. Think what you want. There are people with new ideas here. They are intelligent and can calculate.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

Hi,

The bed was in this position when Mary used her room since there is blood on the door. The reason why she had moved the bed from the wall beside the door should have been people the running up and down the stairs on the other side of the wall.

That's an opinion, you may be right, you could say the bed "may" have been in this position; but you insist on "was" that donates a definite fact. You don’t know that do you Pierre? You believe it .

The Actual position of the "door" is not fixed from what I can tell

The bed and table must have been moved from a position in front of the door if the door knocked against the table when the police tried to open it and, above all, because we see the bed and table standing in front of the door on MJK3.

No we don't see the bed in front of the door ! that is your opinion, which you are entitled to, but Please stop stating it is a fact. it is not!

The police must have entered the room at about 12 since there is light in the room. There may be artificial light added to it.

What do you base this time on? There would be light until at least 3.30 if not 4pm.

The available evidence does not support your view!

Just because earlier ripperologists have had other ideas about this murder site doesnīt mean they were right. It could mean they were wrong.

How could it MEAN they were wrong?
yes they could be wrong in their interpretation, as could you be in yours

And just because Abberline didnīt describe what he saw in this room (except from the grate, a candle and a clay pipe) doesnīt mean he was lying.

Stop playing semantics, he was under oath. Do you have evidence to support your view that he withheld information?
Regards Pierre

regards elamarna

[Pierre]

Thankyou Richard.

When we view it to scale the bed does look too far away from the right side, and clearly a table placed by the side of the bed is not going to impede the passage door as it was forced open.
Sorry to trouble you, but perhaps 6ft from the right was too great, unless anyone else has any ideas maybe 3-4ft should be the working hypothesis?

Hi Richardh,

According to Goadīs Fire Insurance Plan the distance from the wall to the right to the top of the beadsted (the distance you show in this picture) is 5,11 inches or 182 centimeters. So it is very accurate.

Regards, Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

by the way i am not convinced it is natural light in the photos.

There's a lot of detail and contrast (in the "close-up" photo at least) that suggests to me a longer exposure than normal in natural light.

[Pierre]

The press reported the post-mortem that afternoon began about 2:00pm, and wrapped up at 4:00pm. So it is unlikely the photographer would be in the room between 2-4, in my opinion.

Hi,

Everybody and especially Steve: Read what Wickerman is writing here.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

The press reported the post-mortem that afternoon began about 2:00pm, and wrapped up at 4:00pm. So it is unlikely the photographer would be in the room between 2-4, in my opinion.

what if they counted the photos as part of the procedure, I know it would be one of the very first crime scene photos, but it is just possible or am I being unrealistic.

by the way i am not convinced it is natural light in the photos.

[Michael W Richards]

Wickerman,

if you are right that the photos were taken 4pm ish then we can almost certainly count out the light source as being natural light. By 9th November, the light would be fading fast in London.

I prefer the time line:

initial viewing,
door opened.
maybe quick check of scene, but not essential.
photos taken, maybe 2.30 to 3.
post mortem conducted.

Truth is could be either or something else.

Saw you mentioned making the gap maybe 3 or 4 foot, I would be tempted to go say 2ft 6 to 3 foot, that would allow for proposed wash stand. However 3 foot to 4 foot still looks ok.

I believe Mary was taken out of the room at around 4:30, so I suspect the photos were taken some time between the "forced" entry around 1:30 and the time of her remains removal in a simple box.

Although, since police were on the scene from just after 11, we have only their word that they waited 2 hours...for bloodhounds that were not in London.

[Pierre]

I have been thinking about the position of the bed.

My first thoughts were that it would be rather odd to have a bed in the middle of the room like this. Usually one puts the head against a wall. Therefore I was assuming that the bed must have been moved from its normal position.

Then I wondered if perhaps this actually is the original location of the bed. Maybe the headboard is against the wall during summer months, but when it gets cold Mary moves it towards the fire. Just a thought.

For taking the photograph, surely it would be useful to have as great a distance between the photographer and the subject as possible. It is a tiny room afterall.

So having the bed tucked into one corner, and the photographer in the diagonally opposite corner of the room would be the best possible positioning for taking photos, no?

Pulling the bed towards the middle of the room would surely hinder taking pictures, not help it.

So if the bed is not flush with the walls for the photo, perhaps the logical reason is that this is the actual location of the bed when discovered?

Hi,

The bed was in this position when Mary used her room since there is blood on the door. The reason why she had moved the bed from the wall beside the door should have been people the running up and down the stairs on the other side of the wall.

The bed and table must have been moved from a position in front of the door if the door knocked against the table when the police tried to open it and, above all, because we see the bed and table standing in front of the door on MJK3.

The police must have entered the room at about 12 since there is light in the room. There may be artificial light added to it.

Just because earlier ripperologists have had other ideas about this murder site doesnīt mean they were right. It could mean they were wrong.

And just because Abberline didnīt describe what he saw in this room (except from the grate, a candle and a clay pipe) doesnīt mean he was lying.

Regards Pierre

[Wickerman]

I prefer the time line:

initial viewing,
door opened.
maybe quick check of scene, but not essential.
photos taken, maybe 2.30 to 3.
post mortem conducted.

The press reported the post-mortem that afternoon began about 2:00pm, and wrapped up at 4:00pm. So it is unlikely the photographer would be in the room between 2-4, in my opinion.

[Stephen Thomas]

Isn't it strange that while the room after the Kelly murder was crawling with policemen, detectives and high ranking officials and even the ashes in the grate were sifted, absolutely nobody said that there was a door in the partition. The only person to describe a door was Walter Dew writing 40 years later and he was probably 'bigging up' his involvement at the time. Any such door would have provided a possible entrance or exit or both for the murderer. The fact that this wasn't mentioned in official reports or the numerous newspaper articles really does prove that there was no door.

And yes, I'm well aware that there's something on the photo that looks like a door.

[Sam Flynn]

if you are right that the photos were taken 4pm ish then we can almost certainly count out the light source as being natural light

Maybe, but not necessarily. It's not as if the photograph's subject was going to make any sudden movements, so a longer exposure time can't be ruled out.