The coffin in Millerīs Court

[Pierre]

Hi,

The coffin that was used in Millerīs Court to transport the remains of Kelly is described like this (please see the attached image) in one of the newspapers (The Freemanīs Journal, 10th November 1888).

Now, this coffin must have been taken into the room in 13 Millerīs Court by the entrance from the court since there were people in Dorset Street and in the court. So they should have made efforts to bring it into the room. That way they would have avoided to carry the remains out in the open before placing them in the coffin.

When the coffin was placed in the room, they should have positioned it right beside the bed to be able to put the remains in the coffin by lifting them in the bed sheet from the bed and directly into the coffin. After this, the rest of the remains (from the table etc) should have been placed in the coffin.

Do you agree that this is a reasonable hypothesis of how they did it?

Now, this hypothesis implies a specific chronological order for the taking of the photographs MJK3 and MJK1, since the police must have made a space in the room for the coffin.

This cronological order would be as follows:

1. The taking of the photograph MJK3 (since it does not show the position of
the bed when the coffin was taken into the room. The bed was blocking
the entrance for the coffin).
2. Moving the bed and the table to the position in photograph MJK1.
3. The taking of the photograph MJK1.
4. Carrying the coffin into the room.
5. Carrying the coffin out of the room.

For 1 to be possible, the photographer had to use another entrance.
For 2 to be necessary, the police must have planned to bring the coffin into the room.
For 4 to be possible, the bed and table must have been moved to the position as in MJK1.

I have a question that I would like to discuss with you now: Is there any of the steps above that you would like to dispute, and if you do, why?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Regards Pierre

[Mayerling]

Hi,

The coffin that was used in Millerīs Court to transport the remains of Kelly is described like this (please see the attached image) in one of the newspapers (The Freemanīs Journal, 10th November 1888).

Now, this coffin must have been taken into the room in 13 Millerīs Court by the entrance from the court since there were people in Dorset Street and in the court. So they should have made efforts to bring it into the room. That way they would have avoided to carry the remains out in the open before placing them in the coffin.

When the coffin was placed in the room, they should have positioned it right beside the bed to be able to put the remains in the coffin by lifting them in the bed sheet from the bed and directly into the coffin. After this, the rest of the remains (from the table etc) should have been placed in the coffin.

Do you agree that this is a reasonable hypothesis of how they did it?

Now, this hypothesis implies a specific chronological order for the taking of the photographs MJK3 and MJK1, since the police must have made a space in the room for the coffin.

This cronological order would be as follows:

1. The taking of the photograph MJK3 (since it does not show the position of
the bed when the coffin was taken into the room. The bed was blocking
the entrance for the coffin).
2. Moving the bed and the table to the position in photograph MJK1.
3. The taking of the photograph MJK1.
4. Carrying the coffin into the room.
5. Carrying the coffin out of the room.

For 1 to be possible, the photographer had to use another entrance.
For 2 to be necessary, the police must have planned to bring the coffin into the room.
For 4 to be possible, the bed and table must have been moved to the position as in MJK1.

I have a question that I would like to discuss with you now: Is there any of the steps above that you would like to dispute, and if you do, why?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Regards Pierre

General question first Pierre, that perhaps you can enlighten me on. I've never really thought about the matter of the victims and their coffins at all. But they all had them for the funerals.

Does anyone know how tall Mary Jane Kelly was? Was she say my height (5'9 1/2 '') or less or more? You see, before we can start talking about the problems of the coffin in the room, we have to know how big Mary was, and how big the coffin was? If Mary was say 5' 9 1/2" then the coffin would probably be about 5' 11 1/2" or possibly a little more, because of the need to have enough room for the remains in the coffin, as well as convenience to the men carrying it. Also the body would presumably have been sewed together as well as possible for the convenience of transporting it into the coffin. At least that is how I see it.

Keep in mind too that the jury at the death inquest were taken to see the body, so that they could have an idea of what the injuries were like. Therefore, the body, when they saw it, was still probably cut up and scattered. After they left (I presume they did not want to dawdle and stare at Mary's remains too long) the remains were probably put together at that point by whatever physicians were available to do it.

Jeff

[JadenCollins]

General question first Pierre, that perhaps you can enlighten me on. I've never really thought about the matter of the victims and their coffins at all. But they all had them for the funerals.

Does anyone know how tall Mary Jane Kelly was? Was she say my height (5'9 1/2 '') or less or more? You see, before we can start talking about the problems of the coffin in the room, we have to know how big Mary was, and how big the coffin was? If Mary was say 5' 9 1/2" then the coffin would probably be about 5' 11 1/2" or possibly a little more, because of the need to have enough room for the remains in the coffin, as well as convenience to the men carrying it. Also the body would presumably have been sewed together as well as possible for the convenience of transporting it into the coffin. At least that is how I see it.

Keep in mind too that the jury at the death inquest were taken to see the body, so that they could have an idea of what the injuries were like. Therefore, the body, when they saw it, was still probably cut up and scattered. After they left (I presume they did not want to dawdle and stare at Mary's remains too long) the remains were probably put together at that point by whatever physicians were available to do it.

Jeff

From MJK's description on here, 5'7.
That means the coffin size is around 5'9?
The coffin width also depends on the size of clothes worn by the deceased, no? Or in this case, the remains...



Jaden

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;366502]
Do you agree that this is a reasonable hypothesis of how they did it?

On first viewing that would appear logical


"This cronological order would be as follows:

1. The taking of the photograph MJK3 (since it does not show the position of
the bed when the coffin was taken into the room. The bed was blocking
the entrance for the coffin). "


Here we go again.

you have not proved this point.
Just repeating it as fact does not make it so .

"2. Moving the bed and the table to the position in photograph MJK1. "

see above, but am prepared to accept some minor movement when the door was opened.


"3. The taking of the photograph MJK1."

your view of the order of things, do not agree, lack of evidence.


"4. Carrying the coffin into the room.
5. Carrying the coffin out of the room."


At least we can agree on those 2.


"For 1 to be possible, the photographer had to use another entrance."

No. you have not proved MJK3 is (a). genuine (b) was taken first or (c) shows the door barricaded


"For 2 to be necessary, the police must have planned to bring the coffin into the room."

No it was not necessary.
why would they not plan to bring the coffin in to the room, how else do you suggest they remove the body, totally redundant point



"For 4 to be possible, the bed and table must have been moved to the position as in MJK1. "

No because that was basically how they were found. you have proved nothing else.

"

"I have a question that I would like to discuss with you now: Is there any of the steps above that you would like to dispute, and if you do, why?"

I have given you my views, they are as valid as. yours!

This is yet another post, which is a blatantly transparent attempt to yet again present your personal opinions as facts

[Pierre]

General question first Pierre, that perhaps you can enlighten me on. I've never really thought about the matter of the victims and their coffins at all. But they all had them for the funerals.

Does anyone know how tall Mary Jane Kelly was? Was she say my height (5'9 1/2 '') or less or more? You see, before we can start talking about the problems of the coffin in the room, we have to know how big Mary was, and how big the coffin was? If Mary was say 5' 9 1/2" then the coffin would probably be about 5' 11 1/2" or possibly a little more, because of the need to have enough room for the remains in the coffin, as well as convenience to the men carrying it. Also the body would presumably have been sewed together as well as possible for the convenience of transporting it into the coffin. At least that is how I see it.

Keep in mind too that the jury at the death inquest were taken to see the body, so that they could have an idea of what the injuries were like. Therefore, the body, when they saw it, was still probably cut up and scattered. After they left (I presume they did not want to dawdle and stare at Mary's remains too long) the remains were probably put together at that point by whatever physicians were available to do it.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Can the height of Kelly be relevant when the body was so mutilated?

Some newspapers wrote that it was the same coffin they used for Polly Nichols.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;366517]

Do you agree that this is a reasonable hypothesis of how they did it?

On first viewing that would appear logical


"This cronological order would be as follows:

1. The taking of the photograph MJK3 (since it does not show the position of
the bed when the coffin was taken into the room. The bed was blocking
the entrance for the coffin). "


Here we go again.

you have not proved this point.
Just repeating it as fact does not make it so .

MJK3 together with the inquest is the proof. Look at it. And read the question of the coroner.

"2. Moving the bed and the table to the position in photograph MJK1. "

see above, but am prepared to accept some minor movement when the door was opened.

Great! A step forward. So what is the evidence for the "minor movement"?


"3. The taking of the photograph MJK1."

your view of the order of things, do not agree, lack of evidence.

No problem, Steve. So what order would you make of them, and what are the motivations for that order, step by step?


"4. Carrying the coffin into the room.
5. Carrying the coffin out of the room."


At least we can agree on those 2.


"For 1 to be possible, the photographer had to use another entrance."

No. you have not proved MJK3 is (a). genuine (b) was taken first or (c) shows the door barricaded

And Steve: You have not proved MJK is a) not genuine b) was not taken first or c) does not show the door barricaded


"For 2 to be necessary, the police must have planned to bring the coffin into the room."

No it was not necessary.
why would they not plan to bring the coffin in to the room, how else do you suggest they remove the body, totally redundant point


Not a redundant point, since they otherwise could have left the bed in the position of MJK3. Therefore, MJK3 can not have been taken AFTER MJK1.


"For 4 to be possible, the bed and table must have been moved to the position as in MJK1. "

No because that was basically how they were found. you have proved nothing else.

"

So what is it that we are seeing on MJK3 and why did the coroner ask Prater about "beds or tables being pulled about" during the night of the murder?

"I have a question that I would like to discuss with you now: Is there any of the steps above that you would like to dispute, and if you do, why?"

I have given you my views, they are as valid as. yours!

You have not accounted for your own chronological order and the motivations for it.

This is yet another post, which is a blatantly transparent attempt to yet again present your personal opinions as facts

"Blatantly" - another belittling word for my thinking. Thank you, Steve. You are ever so nice.

But I am still waiting to see your chronological order and the motivations for it. Or perhaps you canīt produce it.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Wickerman]

It was a 'shell' that was carried into the room, it is not a coffin per-se, just an oblong box for human remains.
You can do a search in the Press Reports section for, "shell". You will see plenty of examples of its use.

All the mutilated pieces of flesh/organs, were carried out in a bucket (pail), covered with newspaper.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Can the height of Kelly be relevant when the body was so mutilated?

Some newspapers wrote that it was the same coffin they used for Polly Nichols.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Given that period of history, and the extreme religiosity of the public, Mary Kelly's remains would have been treated with a degree of respect if placed in any coffin - so yes, I think they would have made an effort to put the body together before transporting it into a coffin.

As for using the same coffin as used for Polly Nichols, I take it this has to be clarified a bit, since she was buried already, Polly's final coffin wasn't the one used but some generic box for the transport to either the morgue or a undertaker's establishment. Most likely the morgue.

And it is relevant. Besides the number of men needed to transport the coffin into the room, which was not a gigantic room, we'd need to figure out the actual amount of space items took up. This includes the coffin, and so we need to guess the size of poor Mary's height. I noticed that Jaden put down Mary was 5' 7", which she rightly guesses means the coffin is about 5'9" or 5'10''. We'll agree to use that as a correct guess, and you may now carry on with the thread.

Jeff

By the way, how tall was Polly Nichols?

[Mayerling]

It was a 'shell' that was carried into the room, it is not a coffin per-se, just an oblong box for human remains.

All the mutilated pieces of flesh/organs, were carried out in a bucket (pail), covered with newspaper.

Thanks Wickerman. I would have supposed it was put together - thanks for the correction.

Jeff

[Wickerman]

Thanks Wickerman. I would have supposed it was put together - thanks for the correction.

Jeff

I'm relying on the press for this information Jeff, what else can we do...

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;366524]

"Blatantly" - another belittling word for my thinking. Thank you, Steve. You are ever so nice.

But I am still waiting to see your chronological order and the motivations for it. Or perhaps you canīt produce it.

Kind regards, Pierre

There is nothing belittling about the word blatantly? it means "obviously" only stronger.
My dictionary defines it as :brazenly obvious; flagrant:
What do you think it means?

I am decent person I have never called You a liar unlike you to me.

On your post, I have given my views, I do not agree with you. my reasons for that are all over the boards, I have no intention of repeating them yet again when you have no intention of listening.

ps. how can you still be waiting, when you have only recently posted. and i have only just seen it.

Yet again you appear to be trying to give a false impression, if that is not so I apologise.

Why do you ask for motivations for the order of things, reasons I could understand, but motivations?

[Robert]

I think it was Annie Chapman who was reported to have been placed in the same shell as that used for Nichols, though I suppose it's perfectly possible that the same shell was used for Kelly too.

[Mayerling]

I think it was Annie Chapman who was reported to have been placed in the same shell as that used for Nichols, though I suppose it's perfectly possible that the same shell was used for Kelly too.

Hi Robert,

A point came to me after my last post to Winkerman. When it comes to the transporting of the remains of the dead Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, both were killed outside - not in a room like Mary Kelly. Therefore the issue of the coffin or shell for both was relatively unimportant because there was plenty of room to maneuver in. Not so with Mary Kelly's apartment room. So again the size of her height is important. Jaden mentioned to me on another thread just now that Mary Kelly may have been taller than Polly Nichols and the others. Perhaps, although why was Elizabeth Stride called "Long Liz"?).

Jeff

[Pierre]

It was a 'shell' that was carried into the room, it is not a coffin per-se, just an oblong box for human remains.
You can do a search in the Press Reports section for, "shell". You will see plenty of examples of its use.

All the mutilated pieces of flesh/organs, were carried out in a bucket (pail), covered with newspaper.

Hi Wickerman,

I know but the journalists call it a coffin.

Do you possibly have a source for your statement about the bucket and newspaper?

Regards Pierre

[JadenCollins]

Hi Wickerman,

I know but the journalists call it a coffin.

Do you possibly have a source for your statement about the bucket and newspaper?

Regards Pierre

I found this picture, might help.