Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by caz 1 minute ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by caz 13 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by caz 32 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 34 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by Robert 50 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by Bridewell 1 hour and 6 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (41 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (15 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (12 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (8 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)
Emma Smith: The Tell-Tale Blade - Thoughts on the Knives Used on Martha Tabram - (4 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Jane Kelly

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-06-2018, 10:29 AM
richardh richardh is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 783
Default Discussion and thoughts on ROOM 13 MILLERS COURT Simon D. Wood dissertation

During my 3D creations of Miller's Court, I frequently refer back to Simon's dissertation (link below) for all sorts of reasons. It was written in 2005 and I remember that Simon, on one of my 3D threads, expressed a desire for casebook to remove the dissertation. I can't remember his reason for wanting it gone.

Is the info in the article still relevant, accurate, standing up to criticism?

What is good and/or bad about the info contained?

I have revisted my 3D creations and I am currently redoing the court and No13 now I have a better PC and full VR facilities. There is a lot wrong with the models I have created over the last 2 years so I am starting over.

Literally, I am beginning from scratch starting with dimensions.

I know there is no real consensus on the floor size of No13 so in this thread, I suppose I'd like to rehash and retread ground already covered in an effort to get a bit closer to an answer. Sort of like a 2018 update on what we know, don't know and our current best guesses.

dissertation link:


http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...ers-court.html
__________________
---------------------------------------------------
JtR3D.com JtR 3D Blog
---------------------------------------------------
HHAP
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-06-2018, 12:38 PM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,439
Default

Hi Richard,

The 12 x 10 ft floor plan is reasonably accurate, but the rest was mostly guesswork.

All I can tell you for sure in 2018 is that MJK3 is definitely not an alternative view of MJK1/2, and MJK1/2 is not a photograph of what we have been led to believe.

And there were no initials on the wall.

Happy New Year.

Regards,

Simon
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-06-2018, 12:45 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,435
Default

Simon's article is great, but I really don't think that the bed or the table were moved for the purpose of taking the photographs. Not that this should affect your reconstructions; just show the bed against the partition wall as per the MJK1 photograph and you'll be fine.

Edit: I notice that Simon has responded, and I'm happy to say that, even if I disagree with him about the bed, I agree 100% about the "initials"
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-07-2018, 11:05 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wood View Post
All I can tell you for sure in 2018 is that MJK3 is definitely not an alternative view of MJK1/2, and MJK1/2 is not a photograph of what we have been led to believe.
Simon's definition of the word "definitely" must be rather different to the dictionary definition.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-07-2018, 11:42 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

There's a pretty fundamental factual flaw in Simon's discussion of the source of the "strip of light" in MJK3.

He claims that the photograph was supposedly taken "in the middle of the morning of November 9th 1888".

Well that's obviously wrong for starters. The door of Kelly's room wasn't broken open until 1.30pm on 9th November.

But this error might explain why Simon evidently thinks that at the time the photograph was taken "cloud cover was at 100%".

That might have been true during the middle of the morning but not during the afternoon when the sun did make an appearance, as confirmed in newspaper reports of the Lord Mayor's Show (which commenced at about 12.30pm).

So if one is looking for a possible light source one need not look further than the sun.

Back to the drawing board Simon.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-07-2018, 01:38 PM
richardh richardh is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 783
Default

Thanks for the replies.
But can I just make it clear that I didn't start this thread to diss Simon's work. It was written a long time ago and things more on, new evidence emerges and ideas and opinions change. This thread wasn't to disparage Simon's dissertation, it was to ask how things stand in 2018 with the benefit of time and hindsight etc.

The thread is aiming to arrive at a modern (2018) consensus as to the details of No13 - room dimensions, content, positions of content and so forth.
ta
__________________
---------------------------------------------------
JtR3D.com JtR 3D Blog
---------------------------------------------------
HHAP
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-07-2018, 01:59 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richardh View Post
Thanks for the replies.
But can I just make it clear that I didn't start this thread to diss Simon's work. It was written a long time ago and things more on, new evidence emerges and ideas and opinions change. This thread wasn't to disparage Simon's dissertation, it was to ask how things stand in 2018 with the benefit of time and hindsight etc.

The thread is aiming to arrive at a modern (2018) consensus as to the details of No13 - room dimensions, content, positions of content and so forth.
ta
Sure but do you understand that Simon's contention is that one of the two known photographs of Kelly's room is not genuine? He's also saying that the other photograph is not "of what we have been led to believe" whatever that means. So using Simon's dissertation as a starting point was probably the worst possible place to start.

As for the layout of the room, he's admitted that it's virtually all "guesswork" so not terribly reliable on that basis.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-07-2018, 02:08 PM
richardh richardh is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 783
Default

Yes, David. I did know about the history of Simon's opinion on the MJK photos. I'm assuming that he's not actually revealed the reasons why, for him, it's a certainty that one of the MJKs is not real and why the other isn't what it seems.

I feel like I'm opening a can of worms here, which, again, wasn't the intention.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------
JtR3D.com JtR 3D Blog
---------------------------------------------------
HHAP
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-07-2018, 02:22 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

No, he's not revealed the reasons.

I do understand your (noble) intentions in trying to understand the layout of Kelly's room but my response to this thread is that you should ignore Simon's 2005 dissertation in its entirety. It's not a good starting point.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-07-2018, 05:02 PM
Dr. John Watson Dr. John Watson is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 304
Default What's the bottom line?

Bottom line: The photographs are what they are. They show what they show. They haven't changed or been modified as to layout. Only individual interpretation of the photos is open to conjecture, which is what we see here. To create a 3-d version of the two photos, I'd simply stick to what is shown and not guess as to the photographer's position. That isn't necessary.

John
__________________
"We reach. We grasp. And what is left at the end? A shadow."
Sherlock Holmes, The Retired Colourman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.