Prater's stairs

[Elamarna]

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.

[Wickerman]

Dear Wickerman and Richard,

my reading of the photo situation could be that after Phillips, by looking via the window asserted that no help was required, that the photographer was sent for. It has been argued in the past that MJK1 was taken from outside of the room, looking through the larger window, I think this unlikely and that it was taken inside the room.

Hi Steve.
Yes, that suggestion came from the Times, that a window was removed to take the photograph.
There are several issues with the Times account, for instance they report that the examination deduced the throat was cut down to the spine, and then report the door was finally broke open and entry was made.
Logic would dictate the door was opened first, before anyone was able to examine the throat wound.

In fact, the Daily News more correctly reports precisely that. First the door was opened, then a preliminary exam. was made, then the photographer arrived and took pictures.
According to reports, the post-mortem then was conducted (as opposed to the official autopsy, which took place at the mortuary the next morning), which concluded at 4:00 pm, and the photographer removed his camera at 4:30. Which might indicate more photo's were taken between 4:00-4:30, and surely the bed had been moved due to the post-mortem?

With regards to your latest view, I feel you have the partition too far away from the wall, this almost has it in the position on the map, which I feel is for guidance that there were openings on all floors, not the actual positioning.

It is like chess yes, I prefer your slightly earlier version with the distance from the head of the bed to the wall at about half of this. Truth is of course we can never be sure.

Yes, I think it had to be seen in that revised position so we can feel more comfortable with a position more in line or closer towards how Richard had it.

[Azarna]

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?

[Wickerman]

On your measurments Jon - and a bit of a rush job as I'm having to go out - here is what I have so far for the bed / partition positions:

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?

[SuspectZero]

Is this sarcasm?

Yes. Most definitely.

[MysterySinger]

You have a good Xmas too.

Actually, they don't have to prove it - consensus will do though there might always be a nagging doubt. Maybe one day I'll get the hang of this here Ripperology.

[Elamarna]

Well Pierre, I think I'm in agreement with Elamarna on this one and I'm simply expressing an opinion.

richardh is free to put the door wherever he sees fit - Goad or not - and he is doing a brilliant job - but the door positions on those plans could merely have been indicative.

I believe my opinion on the door position is at least as valid as your own on the barricading of the other door. i will continue to express an opinion - I don't mind at all if others are able to prove it to be wrong.

Hi MysterySinger,

that’s the point isn’t it. if others can prove or at least give a very convincing argument, then we have to accept it, or provide an equally valid argument in favour or our view point.

have a good xmas

[Elamarna]

Hi MysterySinger,

With all due respect, please let Richardh work with the measures on the Goadīs Fire Incurance Plan. There is a reason for this: The map is drawn before or in 1890. They are very close in time. We are not. Also, they ARE actually in Dorset Street and Millerīs Court when they are drawing the map. So they are the primary source. We are not. And if we get a "gut feeling" that some measure is "wrong" - we are the ones who are wrong. Not the people drawing the map.

Best Wishes Pierre

Dear Pierre,
They almost certainly were not in Dorset Street, drawing the map.

Yes the map is indeed a primary source, but some of its accuracy is in doubt. No external doors, these are assumed. Openings on several floors are indicated. to assume they are all in the same spot is presumptuous.

I agree entirely with your statement:

"gut feeling" that some measure is "wrong" - we are the ones who are wrong. Not the people drawing the map.

That neatly sums up the position you make with regards to an opening into 27 from 26, there is none.

[MysterySinger]

Well Pierre, I think I'm in agreement with Elamarna on this one and I'm simply expressing an opinion.

richardh is free to put the door wherever he sees fit - Goad or not - and he is doing a brilliant job - but the door positions on those plans could merely have been indicative.

I believe my opinion on the door position is at least as valid as your own on the barricading of the other door. i will continue to express an opinion - I don't mind at all if others are able to prove it to be wrong.

[Pierre]

On your measurments Jon - and a bit of a rush job as I'm having to go out - here is what I have so far for the bed / partition positions:





and a superimposed:

Will work more on it tomorrow

looking forward to your thoughts / ideas /suggestions.

Richardh, you are actually a genious. For the first time in history, we will, with a very high probability, see the murder site as it really was.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

here we go again.
What was the old byline: "just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water"

I am sure that is not what Wickerman meant. His view from how I read it was that there may have been movement of the bed to allow for the photographs, this is as I understand it based on Richards latest plan showing the bed some 5 ft from the passage wall.

No one has said the bed may not have been moved abit, I am certainly open to that possibility. a deciding factor would be when MJK1 was taken, was it taken as some suggest by looking from the window from the outside of 13 millers court, or was it taken inside.
Once again you interpret things to your own end:.

The coroner asking about furniture is not proof, you do not know his reasoning for asking.
Bowyer saying he had to look twice is just a phrase in English, and by the way given your Plan, if he saw the table there is no reason he would not see the bed.
The police waited, that is what they said in court. unless you have evidence to the contrary this is just wishful thinking on your part.
The same applies to your view that he barricaded the door to protect himself. NO EVIDENCE.

[Wickerman]

... Also, they ARE actually in Dorset Street and Millerīs Court when they are drawing the map.....

Pierre.

If you are saying what you appear to be saying, the draftsman was in Dorset St.?
then no, this is not the case.
The Goads mapping company drew every building across London, and many other principal cities throughout England.
No draftsman had the time to visit every building in London.
Goads company works from construction plans supplied by architects, they don't need to leave their office.

Somehow, I don't think that is what you meant, but it is how it reads.

[Pierre]

richardh, the position of the bed head, relative to the door in the partition is spot on but I would agree that the door needs to be a bit nearer to external wall (the wall by the passageway). In that corner I believe there was a washbasin so the bed head couldn't go nearer the wall. A washbasin has been depicted in some pictures.

I also believe that in both MJK1 and MJK3, the foot of Mary's bed has been moved a little away from the partition such that the bed is at a slight angle.

Hi MysterySinger,

With all due respect, please let Richardh work with the measures on the Goadīs Fire Incurance Plan. There is a reason for this: The map is drawn before or in 1890. They are very close in time. We are not. Also, they ARE actually in Dorset Street and Millerīs Court when they are drawing the map. So they are the primary source. We are not. And if we get a "gut feeling" that some measure is "wrong" - we are the ones who are wrong. Not the people drawing the map.

Best Wishes Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;364834]On that thought, which I agree incidentally, I located a press opinion to back it up.
"They made a preliminary examination of the body, and sent for a photographer, who took several photographs of the remains."

So they did enter the room, make a preliminary examination (requiring moving the bed?), and then sent for a photpgrapher. Either that, or after the preliminary exam, the photographer arrived and took photographs before the post-mortem that afternoon, which took about 2 hours.

So yes, the photo may not capture the original position of the bed, as found when the door was opened.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree that the photo may not capture the original position of the bed. But I have taken that thought a step further as you all know and hypothesized that the table and bed were barricading the entrance door in the court. The reasons for doing so is (1) that the coroner asked Prater if she had heard any beds or tables being pulled around during the night, (2) that Bowyer did not see the body on the bed when he first looked through the window, he only saw the flesh on the table (which was in front of the bed from the position of the entrance door) and (3) the door knocking against the table. Also, naturally, one could think of the advantages the killer must have given himself barricading the door and getting out through the door in the doorway through the front room. Placing the table and bed in front of the window for shock effect (getting such an effect is always in his MO) and barricading the door so no one could disturb him, especially if it was quite easy to open the door, as Barnett stated. And the door was not locked - so why did the police "wait" in the court for more than to hours? Because they didnīt. McCarthy knew every entrance to the room, the police must have gotten in through the front room and that is why we have MJK3.

And the police didnīt even have to lie about this. They kept quiet. And at the inquest Abberline told nothing of what he saw in 13 Millerīs Court except for the grate and the clay pipe.

So you see Wickerman, you may think the police moved the furniture and they did. They had to, because the bed and table was in front of the door. So they moved the furniture to get enough space for passing in and out of this small room. That explains the position of the bed in MJK1.

Regards Pierre

[MysterySinger]

richardh, the position of the bed head, relative to the door in the partition is spot on but I would agree that the door needs to be a bit nearer to external wall (the wall by the passageway). In that corner I believe there was a washbasin so the bed head couldn't go nearer the wall. A washbasin has been depicted in some pictures.

I also believe that in both MJK1 and MJK3, the foot of Mary's bed has been moved a little away from the partition such that the bed is at a slight angle.