Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[David Orsam]

for those who don't have the book I have solved the problem'

go to

http://www.jack-the-ripper.org/jack-the-ripper-photos.htm

scroll down the page until you come to the mary kelly section.

click on the mjk3 thumb and the full picture as in book opens

regards

Elamarna

I see it. So much for Pierre's "hinges"!

[Pierre]

for those who don't have the book I have solved the problem'

go to

http://www.jack-the-ripper.org/jack-the-ripper-photos.htm

scroll down the page until you come to the mary kelly section.

click on the mjk3 thumb and the full picture as in book opens

regards

Elamarna

Hi,

Yes. But you see, the strip of light is a known problem discussed for a long time. And what you show us here is one reproduction in one book.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

lets just sum up.

we have a photoMJK1 which is backed by the sworn statements of 2 individuals

this would suggest that Bowers testimony was accurate.

we have a second photo or maybe 2.

it is suggested this proves bed was moved to block the door.

is there any EVIDENCE, other than an interpretation of that photo to back this up?

are there any statements or press reports indeed to back this interpretation?

after several weeks on several threads I believe the answer is NO.

asking why something was done is NOT EVIDENCE, it may lead to some but unless a reply comes forward which can be checked it is not evidence.

ANY RESEARCHER KNOWS THIS, wither they are professional or amateur

Yes, let´s just sum up and since I am not one of the researchers in the know, I am happy to think in another way:

1. In the MJK1 photo you have wainscoting with several boards showing behind the beadstead.

On the plan in the thread you refer to the bed is placed directly against the wall.

The photo angle therefore can not show the smaller window since the photo is taken from further down in the room.

And it can not show the entrance door to the left of the window. The bed is not up against this wall!

2. The photograph does not show any corner. So there can be no window in the photo.

3. The light confirms the position of the window.

4. The hinges confirm the position of the entrance door.

5. The leg has fallen down in MJK1. The body was of course very fragile and when the police moved the bed back into it´s original position, the leg fell down. You can see it having done so in the photograph.

6. IF the door was so easy to open (Barnett´s statement), why would the killer not have been barricading the door?

7. IF the door was so easy to open - why use a pickaxe?

8. Why would McCarthy not have seen the body when he first pulled the curtain aside and looked inside the room? Because seeing two lumps of flesh on a table close to a window would make most people react as he did.

9. Why did the police border up not just Miller´s Court but also 26 Dorset Street?

10. What interest could the killer possibly have had in entering number 26 after the murder? The police was said to be worried about that.

11. Why wasn´t MJK3 made public together with MJK1?

12. Why did the coroner ask Prater if she had heard beds or tables being pulled around?

13. Why did Abberline say almost nothing about the crime scene? Compare it to other police testimonies in the JtR-case and you will immediately see there are A LOT more information in them compared to the murder on Kelly.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

for those who don't have the book I have solved the problem'

go to

http://www.jack-the-ripper.org/jack-the-ripper-photos.htm

scroll down the page until you come to the mary kelly section.

click on the mjk3 thumb and the full picture as in book opens

regards

Elamarna

[Elamarna]

David

thanks for the reply, copyright can be a pain sometimes.

maybe some on the board as a copy they can legally post

the difference is startling, "i had to look twice"

steve

[Elamarna]

Dear all,

it is unbelievable to me that in response to a post which suggests that the photo used could be questionable, not because I say so, but because there are 2 versions showing different things; all the OP can say is I am attacking him, no comments about the 2 pictures which would be interesting and maybe helpful.

so lets just sum up.

we have a photoMJK1 which is backed by the sworn statements of 2 individuals

this would suggest that Bowers testimony was accurate.

we have a second photo or maybe 2.

it is suggested this proves bed was moved to block the door.

is there any EVIDENCE, other than an interpretation of that photo to back this up?

are there any statements or press reports indeed to back this interpretation?

after several weeks on several threads I believe the answer is NO.

asking why something was done is NOT EVIDENCE, it may lead to some but unless a reply comes forward which can be checked it is not evidence.

ANY RESEARCHER KNOWS THIS, wither they are professional or amateur

[David Orsam]

I don't have the Jones book either, Steve, so can't comment.

[Elamarna]

Joshua,

not for me to say, its just a general book, i would not say buy it for the picture.

[Elamarna]

And therefore anything Pierre says here can be dismissed as impossible.

Regards Pierre

no Pierre,

i have written an instructive piece, which does not show you are wrong, its not about that.

it says that photographs without the original source are questionable.
the same would be true of MJK1 if not backed at the inquest by 2 sworn statements

I have spoken about 2 different prints of what claims to be the same image. one of which gives no backing what so ever for the idea you have put forward, who knows which is true.

[Joshua Rogan]

I'm intrigued by this second MJ3 photo, but I don't have a copy of the book, so can't comment. Is the book worth buying aside from that photo?

[MysterySinger]

The validity is in the fact that the Coroner asked the question. Why would he?

He has a reason to ask it because of information he had gained from whatever source. The furniture had been moved about. The reason for asking Prater was in trying to determine the time of the murder (or at least guided by the timing of the movement of the furniture) - that is just my assumption.

If Prater answers that she heard no movement, then either it wasn't loud enough to be heard (or to wake her), or it happened at a time when she was out, or it didn't happen. The last possibility we know cannot be true in this case.

[Pierre]

Hi all,

I am using this to show that without the[ original plates it is impossible to be sure of what we see.

Elamarna

And therefore anything Pierre says here can be dismissed as impossible.

Regards Pierre

[GUT]

is frankly barking mad.

As is pretty much every word Pierre posts.

[Elamarna]

Hi GUT,
I bet he does too.

he has ignore the post about different versions of MJK3, which completely blows his theory out of the water.

[GUT]

Why? She was drunk. And probably scared.

The validity is in the coroner asking this question.

Regards Pierre

So asking a question makes something true