Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[Elamarna]

David

we covered the same issues i think.

Has Pierre said he guessed the bed length?

[David Orsam]

Has Pierre said he guessed the bed length?

He said "We all have to guess" and "Your guess is as good as mine".

As much as it's possible to understand anything Pierre is saying then, yes, I would say he has admitted to guessing the bed length, but without, of course, providing any data about average bed lengths in the nineteenth century to support that guess.

[Elamarna]

David

thanks,

I am waiting for the reply to my questions in my long post.
am very interested in the replies

seems i am not with you on the list of shame yet

[Pcdunn]

Beds weren't shorter in the past, experts say

He said "We all have to guess" and "Your guess is as good as mine".

As much as it's possible to understand anything Pierre is saying then, yes, I would say he has admitted to guessing the bed length, but without, of course, providing any data about average bed lengths in the nineteenth century to support that guess.

I tried a brief search to determine how long beds were in the 19th century, but found little. This link is very interesting: https://historymyths.wordpress.com/t...-were-shorter/

Wiki merely says: "While the "double" size appears to be standard among English speaking countries, based on the imperial measurement of 4 ft 6 in by 6 ft 3 in (137 cm x 190 cm), the sizes for other bed types tend to vary."

Apparently beds averaged 6 feet long in past centuries, not that much off from the average bed of today. Of course, there was great variation for cots and beds used by babies, children, and perhaps Tom Thumb.

MJK's bed seems to have a headboard (can't see the foot of it to know if it also had a footboard, so we don't know if it has four posts), but also seems to be typically rope-strung and with a thin mattress. Probably no larger than a single bed of today.

[David Orsam]

David

thanks,

I am waiting for the reply to my questions in my long post.
am very interested in the replies

seems i am not with you on the list of shame yet

If he sees you talking to me again you might get there!

[David Orsam]

I tried a brief search to determine how long beds were in the 19th century, but found little. This link is very interesting: https://historymyths.wordpress.com/t...-were-shorter/

Wiki merely says: "While the "double" size appears to be standard among English speaking countries, based on the imperial measurement of 4 ft 6 in by 6 ft 3 in (137 cm x 190 cm), the sizes for other bed types tend to vary."

Apparently beds averaged 6 feet long in past centuries, not that much off from the average bed of today. Of course, there was great variation for cots and beds used by babies, children, and perhaps Tom Thumb.

MJK's bed seems to have a headboard (can't see the foot of it to know if it also had a footboard, so we don't know if it has four posts), but also seems to be typically rope-strung and with a thin mattress. Probably no larger than a single bed of today.

Good research! So as a single bed I'd be looking at about 180cm (roughly 6ft) for Mary's bed. Would you agree with that?

[Elamarna]

Hi Pcdunn

That's really useful.
To be honest before yesterday I had not really thoght much about bed size.
I just assumed they were approx the same size as today.

So having gone to nearly 9 ft we have gone back to 6ft 6 and now that is back at where I guess most of us assumed it was in first place.
Unless someone provides evidence of different sizes in 19th century London. Would seem 6ft is a good figure to use.

[David Orsam]

So having gone to nearly 9 ft we have gone back to 6ft 6 and now that is back at where I guess most of us assumed it was in first place.

For the sake of clarity, I think you mean that Pierre is at 6 ft 6 but that the rest of us are at around 6ft (or at least I certainly am!)?

[Robert St Devil]

David orsam. Did you see the drawings that i posted on Page 10? The door to the staircase appears to be u der the arch, near marys door. I was thinking that the reports on the murder of kitty ronan might shine some light on the upstAirs layout, staircase location, etc. Gate idea is good.

[Elamarna]

For clarification.

I would say anything up to current length is acceptable. That would be 6ft 3 inches .
For anything more than that we would need a data source showing that length of bed was
Commonly used/available In 1888 London.

Interesting enough the smaller the bed is the more likely the view point in MJK3 lines up with the lightstrip whatever that may be. Unfortunately the smaller bed makes Pierre's reading of Dr Phillips testimony unlikely.
Elamarna

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

I was just looking at your last plan.(post 248)

You have the end of the table level with the end of the bed.

This is very different from the previous 2 plans, posts 200 & 201.

Although i disagree with your idea of the door being a barricade, you have always produced plans which line up the bed and table as shown in MJK3.

This latest plan would appear to be inconsistent with the respective positions of bed and table as portrayed in MJK3.

Does that not suggest that the latest plan is unsustainable.

regards

Elamarna

[Robert St Devil]

Steve, David, Pierre.

This is a more accurate evaluation of what Pierre is proposing based on some general assessments of furniture dimensions. The door is 3 ft. Pierre's illustration does not account for the width (depth) of the table.

Feel free to place the secret door where you choose.

[Pcdunn]

Good research! So as a single bed I'd be looking at about 180cm (roughly 6ft) for Mary's bed. Would you agree with that?

Thank you, David. Yes, that seems likely, given Mary's height of five foot seven. The only problem might be the size of the room, in which case the bed might have been a bit shorter.

While we're on the subject of Mary's furniture, in the photo marked MJK1, the table beside the bed seems smaller than the table apparent in the MJK3 photograph. Do you think they are the same table, or perhaps a washstand and a table?

[Elamarna]

Robert.

That's a nice layout. On the whole I like it , but would however move the table about 6 inches nearer the bottom wall. As it stands it does not correspond to the postioned in Mjk3. More of it must cover the door.

I have a few points:
Firstly I don't feel that this correspods to Pierre's latest suggestion at all.
His bed must stretch further towards the partition to allow for it to be close besides the wooden partition.
His last plan has the bottom of the bed away from the wall and actually level with the bottom of the table. That postioned is inconsistent with the view in MJK3
One assumes this is to allow the head of the bed to be nearer to the partition wall. This however would also put the body in the wrong postion in relation to MJK3.

Unless we have evidence for a bed 6 .5 long, I feel we must use a figure which we have a source for. So should be 6.3 at most a figure of 6ft could equally be used .

Agree about width of table.

Finally the last figures I saw for the room were 9x15.

However your plan would generally fit MJK3, if it was used as a barricade very well!
WHICH OF COURSE IT WAS NOT.

STEVE

[Jeff Leahy]

Having just skimmed the posts this might have been mentioned before so i apologies in advance if I'm saying something already concidered.

But in discussions years ago the positioning of the furniture in the room was discussed at length. Indeed it had some importance when we reconstructed the room and the same applied then.

But perhaps whoever photographed the room had need to move various itoms around to fit his clumsy equipmrnt focus his lenses (Depending on depth of field) and possibly also to maximise light (Depending on time of day)

As the murder scene was not considered as it is today.... Then moving items may not have seen as critical as getting a good exposure.

So perhaps the bed was moved by the person taking the photograph? My opinion is it would have been against the partition and Jack attacked MJK from the front through her sheets

Yours Jeff