Suggestion

[Elamarna]

Non Answers

Pierre

I really do appreciate that you are a busy person, but you do only answer questions that you like.

You have not answered questions from myself post 63 which was a series of fairly general questions.
Again questions from David Orsam post 79 and myself post 82 both relating to you comments about Abberline and his statement at the Kelly Inquest.

You have implied that things had to have happened as you suggest because of this statement, but there is nothing in this statement which appears to be hiding anything. both David and Myself have asked you to clarify your statement.
From what you have implied we must assume there was some evidence in number 26, is that correct?
You imply that the police boarded up number 26 in order to stop anyone looking in, so as to prevent something being seen, is that correct?
.
Mobile evidence would be easily recorded and moved, blood smears could be photographed and then as was usual removed so are you suggesting something which was not mobile was in this area?

All i can think of would be some form of message, there is no record of any such evidence, what evidence do you have to support this or indeed that any evidence was in number 26.

You may notice that i am not saying you are wrong on any of these points, i am purely asking what evidence you have to support your many ideas.

regards

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;361673]

Im not sure what you are looking for here Pierre, but as I said the most obvious answer...restricting access and visual inspection of room 13, seems to me to be the most probable reason. In the same way that they kept onlookers out of the courtyard all afternoon to preserve the crime scene, they likely boarded up the room to preserve the scene for further forensics if needed. In fact Abberline did return to the room to do more forensics on Saturday morning.

Plus, the door was broken due to it being forced to open earlier so they could not simply lock the door to secure the room.

Michael - I am NOT talking about the windows in Kellys room. I am talking about the windows in room number 26. The room next to Kelly´s. Towards the street. They boarded up the windows in 26 Dorset Street. Look at the picture again. And tell me - if you think you have any idea - why did they do this?

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre

you have told us many times that you only deal only in data and facts from the period .

therefore:

1. What evidence do you have for your ideas about this door? is this more private data?

Evidence: MJK1, MJK3, Goad Fire Insurance plan, drawing showing windows in number 26 boarded up.

Indications in line with these sources: police not able to get into the room, talk of "locked" door, "missing key", talk of "waiting" outside the room for more than 2 hours because of "blood hounds" that didn´t arrive.

2. Can you tell us if the door opened into or out from the room?

Into number 26 according to the plan.

3. If it opened inwards, the bed would have acted as a Barricade on this door too, Are you suggesting the bed was not normally against the wall?.

It was against the wall since there was blood on the floor from cutting her throat. And how would Mary otherwise have gotten into the room...

(4. if so what EVIDENCE do you have for this?)

5. Do you have evidence it was not boarded up as others have suggested?

Where is the evidence for the door between 13 and 26 being "boarded up". In the inquest we hear of a "partition" and a "wooden partition."

http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...est_kelly.html

6. If it was Boarded how did he remove the covering with out attracting attention, did he carry a crowbar or claw hammer?

Was it boarded up? Or just a "partition". It is easy to break up a locked door when no one is in the apartment.

7. You have told me that the police must have moved the bed back to the view in MJK1.Why would the police move the bed in their own photo which was not for public consumption and therefore would not be used to hide evidence?

I always find it interesting when people use the expression "the police". We must consider the strong possibility that there were a few persons within the police organization who got access to important evidence.

8. MJK3 is disputed, the Provence is unknown. Many suggest it is a fake. Have you read the thread by Simon Wood on this, he uses physics to suggest the position the bed was when this photo was taken. this does not agree with yours, so who is right?

Simon uses a fictive chair for his measures. So that gives the wrong results.

He also says the strip of light is no strip of light "if the door was closed". He just makes up his mind it had to be closed. Why?

He also build his hypothesis of the strip of light on "Tweaking in Photoshop". I don´t think this is a reliable measurement instrument.

He says it is no strip of light but something internal from a body dangling from the ceiling. How did it get stuck up there - did the murderer use glue?.

I do not think it looks as anything else than the light coming in through the door which is slightly open.

So basically he is saying it is closed, I say it is slightly open. He says it is something internal from a body dangling in the ceiling. I say it is light coming in.

So his measures are not reliable for the description of the position of the table and bed. That is better done by the photo itself.

9. Obviously this ties in with your statements that he tried to enter the upstairs room as well; again on behalf of many here i ask you what evidence you have for this?

No. It has nothing to do with that.

10. You do not believe that MJK1 is an accurate rendition of the room as first found, is that a fair statement? Indeed you cannot accept it as this shows the door blocked by the bed. if it opened outward what evidence do you have that the police found clues in that area as you have suggested?

It is accurate to the point of the killer having killed Mary Kelly. But not for the mutilations.

He wanted privacy, knew he was going to work longer on this victim and did not know if someone would come so he just barricaded the door. What is so fantastic about that?

The coroner asked Prater if she had heard any beds or tables beeing pulled around. So someone knew he did that.

all I see in your Evidence is two photos in the public domain, 1 of which is disputed, even those who use it to support the theory that this was not the work a single lone killer accept the picture may have been doctored. Are you aware of this? i can almost hear you saying that as its not a primary source you ignore it!

Well, just because something is in the public domain doesn´t mean it is no good evidence. Simon took interest in it. As did many others. And whatever your interpretation of the photographs is, you are all interpreting the same photographs.

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

I understand. However, as Pierre's theory concerns the killer entering and leaving using this door, I don't feel bad about referring to it as such.

Just as long as you realize that it was not possible to do so, that's my concern Brenda. Its fine to explore myths, not so fine when they are debunked yet still embraced as truth.

[Wickerman]

Why did they board up the windows in number 26?

They didn't board up the front of No. 26, the wooden paneling you see is described elsewhere as a gate.
The brick front had been removed at some point and the wooden gate installed, this is where McCarthy kept his barrows. This room is also described elsewhere as the "shed".

[Brenda]

I really think its time to stop referring to a "secret door", as has been explained many times already the door was not installed...it was mounted. It was an old door that served as a wall, it didn't "open"...end of story.

I understand. However, as Pierre's theory concerns the killer entering and leaving using this door, I don't feel bad about referring to it as such.

[Michael W Richards]

Pierre, if the killer entered the room by the secret door where the bed was, how did the arterial spray get on the wall/door while it was right next to the wall/door? Because the bed would have had to be moved for him to get in.

I really think its time to stop referring to a "secret door", as has been explained many times already the door was not installed...it was mounted. It was an old door that served as a wall, it didn't "open"...end of story.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Pierre;361668]

Hi Pierre,

As for the boarding up of the room, I believe the obvious answer is probably correct, to ensure no-one could enter or see into that room from the courtyard. But I also recall reading that its possible they removed the window closest to the front corner, the one with the broken pane in the lower right corner. I believe the windows were 3 framed panes across, and six high...or some such panel configuration.

No, Michael. I asked you the following question:

Why did they board up the windows in number 26?

Regards Pierre

Im not sure what you are looking for here Pierre, but as I said the most obvious answer...restricting access and visual inspection of room 13, seems to me to be the most probable reason. In the same way that they kept onlookers out of the courtyard all afternoon to preserve the crime scene, they likely boarded up the room to preserve the scene for further forensics if needed. In fact Abberline did return to the room to do more forensics on Saturday morning.

Plus, the door was broken due to it being forced to open earlier so they could not simply lock the door to secure the room.

[Brenda]

.

Pierre, if the killer entered the room by the secret door where the bed was, how did the arterial spray get on the wall/door while it was right next to the wall/door? Because the bed would have had to be moved for him to get in.

[Pierre]

Pierre,
would you mind answering the following questions or do you prefer to keep ignoring them because they are inconvenient to your 'theory':

No. I don´t ignore things inconvinient to my theory. Quite the opposite. I´m just a little busy. So here we go.

1. How about the blood splatters at the corner of the wall?

Cutting of throat.

2. Did the door open into Mary's room or into 26?

Into number 26.

Thanks a lot

You´re welcome.IchabodCrane

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;361638]Hi Pierre,

As for the boarding up of the room, I believe the obvious answer is probably correct, to ensure no-one could enter or see into that room from the courtyard. But I also recall reading that its possible they removed the window closest to the front corner, the one with the broken pane in the lower right corner. I believe the windows were 3 framed panes across, and six high...or some such panel configuration.

No, Michael. I asked you the following question:

Why did they board up the windows in number 26?

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael W. R.
Not to be entirely contentious with what you wrote since I am considering the other aspects too but...

To murder Annie Chapman, The killer had to walk through someones house and into their backyard. And then, I think, jump the fence and escape.?.?.

The point being, its private property. Its not the middle of the road. Its in the backyard of a neighbourhood. True, this prostitute doesnt own her lodging; however, he proves that he is not afraid to go through a residence in order to murder her.

I believe that was what was at the heart of the Annie Chapman murder - the scandal. The scandal that "pagan murders could happen to you or someone you know muhahah!".

Its September 30th that throws the story off.

Its not clear why the couple ended up in the backyard at Hanbury, so its possible the the killer did not have any input as to where the "liason" would happen. Street women had been known to take clients to that yard. Although I believe that the killer had some influence on the location because of the dangers he encountered attacking the previous victim in a street open at both ends. I think he wanted more time,..therefore he needed to be in a more private venue. Its my opinion Pollys mutilations were interrupted.

Millers Court had a 20 foot tunnel of stone leading to a very small courtyard and it had no other access points. That was truly trapped if caught in the act.

[DJA]

Sam Flynn pointed out the faded #26 to me on that thread Jon. And yes...nice to agree.

Truth is the door bore no resemblance at all to the sturdy front doors of both 26 and 27.

The archway used to be gated.

Mary's room was possibly servants quarters.
Rear parlor also makes sense.

The Public Health Act 1875 required access to the outdoor toilet.

[Robert St Devil]

I believe that the first 2 Canonicals victims revealed a great deal about that killer, including his choice of a homeless stranger for a target. Another revealing act was the focus of the pm mutilations. In the case of Mary Kelly we have a victim who is not homeless nor outdoors, someone who is already in their rented bed when the killer attacks. And he leaves a uterus under her head, something I believe was the primary target for Annies killer and arguably, perhaps, Polly's.

This is also the only Canonical victim who admittedly was in a love triangle prior to her death.

Hello Michael W. R.
Not to be entirely contentious with what you wrote since I am considering the other aspects too but...

To murder Annie Chapman, The killer had to walk through someones house and into their backyard. And then, I think, jump the fence and escape.?.?.

The point being, its private property. Its not the middle of the road. Its in the backyard of a neighbourhood. True, this prostitute doesnt own her lodging; however, he proves that he is not afraid to go through a residence in order to murder her.

I believe that was what was at the heart of the Annie Chapman murder - the scandal. The scandal that "pagan murders could happen to you or someone you know muhahah!".

Its September 30th that throws the story off.

[DJA]

26 and 27 were originally town houses.

Largely agree with what you have to say.

Abberline however reportedly mentioned the room was still warm when entered at 1.30pm that afternoon.

I reckon Dr Phillips knew what was going on and believe his testimony.
Somewhat conflicted by his evidence re splatter on the wall.
He says there was,however the in situ photo that remains shows none.