Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[David Orsam]

[B]Well, well. Why should McCarthy break open the door if he just had to put his hand through the broken window and open it? That is: Who shall we believe - Barnett or the person who talked about a pickaxe?

As someone purportedly taking a scientific approach to this issue, Pierre, you should know that the first thing to establish is: Did McCarthy know he could open the door by putting his hand through the broken window? Unless you are able to provide some evidence to enable this question to be answered in the affirmative, your own question is scientifically invalid.

[David Orsam]

Yes, I am just like that - I don´t believe everything I read. Crazy me!

Under normal circumstances that would be a sensible, nay laudable, approach but here we are talking about the sworn testimony of a divisional surgeon at an inquest, as well as the sworn testimony of the inspector of police in charge of the investigation. So yes, it is crazy not to believe that evidence when you read it.

[David Orsam]

Abberline never described the entrance door to Miller´s Court himself when he testified but he referred to Joe Barnett:

"An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy."

Abberline was a police officer and would have understood how to open the door if there was any possibility to open it. And according to the description of Barnett, it would have been very easy. So why did Abberline not open the door to enter the room? What did he do for more than two hours outside of this room? That is my point.

Do you seriously not know the answer to this Pierre?

I have already answered it but I'll do it again.

Firstly, Abberline did not learn from Barnett about the "quite easy" method for opening the door until he spoke to Barnett after he had already been in room 13.

Secondly, there was absolutely no reason for Abberline to have known about this method prior to entering room 13. He didn't need to know because an axe was available and this is all that was necessary for entering the room.

Thirdly, the sentence "Abberline was a police officer and would have known how to open the door if there was a possibility to open it" is a non sequitor. Why do policemen have special knowledge about opening doors?

Fourthly, it has already been explained that the evidence is clear that Abberline was waiting two hours for the bloodhounds to arrive and did not want to enter room 13 before they arrived for fear of putting them off the scent. That is why he waited two hours. What was he doing during that two hours? He was waiting for the bloodhounds.

[Pierre]

Elamarna. As for technicality: the door, yes. The table, yes. The bed, i dunno. When i used the same scale for the bed as the door, the bed looked too small for the body. When i doubled it, it looked too long. I am sure there is some algorithm for determining how much the scale would shift if that bed is 2 ft. Away from Pierre's door.

Hi Robert,

If you like to experiment I have a suggestion to make. Put a bed diagonally across a corner, take a photo of it and publish it here!

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

So Pierre, McCarthy knew that there was a way into the room via the partition. Yet he chose to prise open the doorway from the court with a pickaxe.

Did McCarthy visit any other acts of wanton vandalism on his own property while he was about it? Perhaps the kettle spout never melted off, but fell off as a result of McCarthy's jumping up and down on it?

Well, well. Why should McCarthy break open the door if he just had to put his hand through the broken window and open it? That is: Who shall we believe - Barnett or the person who talked about a pickaxe?

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

But Pierre, you've been told several times WHY the police didn't enter the room for 2 hours - they were awaiting the arrival of the bloodhounds. Whether Abberline spent those two hours a) scratching his head and wondering how the hell he was going to open the door when the dogs finally arrived, or b) controlling the crowds, searching the court and interviewing witnesses, is anybody's guess. But I'd go for b).

Yes, I am just like that - I don´t believe everything I read. Crazy me!

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

The theory that the strip of light is coming through the hinge side of the door only really works if the door is open somewhat. External door frames (and most internal ones) have a strip of raised wood against which the door closes, and which prevents things like wind, rain and light getting straight through. With the door firmly closed and the camera view perpendicular to the door as in Pierre's post #106, there would be no gap for any light to shine through.

Hi Joshua,

Yes, and I think it is indeed slightly open since they tried to force the door. So this is what you see in the photograph.

Regards Pierre

[Chris2307uk]

Darn Copyright! I don't have my copy of the book to hand!

[Elamarna]

something to make us think

Hi all,

Today I got a copy of "uncovering Jack the Rippers London" by Richard Jones. i finally went on a tour last week run by the ever wonderful Phil Hhutchinson, so decided to get the book for the tour.

Nowi am sure cannot be the first to notice what I am about to say but please bare with me. ( did a search but was unable to find any mention of it on the board.)

On page 121 there is a copy of MJK3, it is substantial different from the copies on this site and in other books I have seen.

For clarification lets us call the image on this site (A) and the image in The book (B).

In A we have a light strip and to the right of it a line which has been suggested as the leg of a chair, this is the image Pierre has based his argument on.

However in B there is NO LIGHT STRIP and that leg of a chair appears to have a extension added to it and can be seen as a Table, there was a table on the wall by the windows I believe.

i have not reproduced the image because the book is copyrighted. but it is a easily available book so is easy to check


For this to happen we have only two explanations surely:

1) At some point in the past the source images used for at least one of these two reprints has been manipulated, that is changed.

2) The two images are from two different exposures, these would be MJK3 and a new MJK4.

Can honestly see no other explanation!

As an aside, Mr Evans has said on the boards he has seen at least one Millers Court photo which was not in the public domain, so the possibility exists.

That could be a whole new thread!

this is not my purpose here

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

If the image B was the image on this board and not image A, Pierre's theory would I am sure not exist.

any comments and corrections happily accepted

Elamarna

[Joshua Rogan]

The coroner asked Prater if she had heard "beds or tables" being pulled around.

This might lend some validity to your theory, had Mrs Prater replied "yes". But I believe her answer was "none whatever".

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Joshua Rogan. I agree. Two hours pass quickly when theres a lot of activity going on. It really only amounts to half of the first part of your workday.

[FrankO]

Hi Pierre,

I know all that you wrote above. I read it before, but that wasn't what I was asking for. Could you please answer my question before we, perhaps, go into anything else?

Thanks

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Robert,

You should reconsider the measures. I have used the same scale as in this plan: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2480

Regards Pierre

Hi pierre. The door will draw itself out depending on what scale you use -and- your approximation for the dimensions of the door. So i dont need to look at that thread. Youve put the table in front of the door so the far side of the table will be on the same scale as the door.

In your drawing, is it intentional that you have the table and the bed being only slightly wider than her broken pane window? I would think that together, they would be about 6 to 7 ft wide (which would put you at the midpoint of the room).

Do you think thats her hip or her leg in the photo?

[Robert St Devil]

Elamarna. As for technicality: the door, yes. The table, yes. The bed, i dunno. When i used the same scale for the bed as the door, the bed looked too small for the body. When i doubled it, it looked too long. I am sure there is some algorithm for determining how much the scale would shift if that bed is 2 ft. Away from Pierre's door.

[Robert]

So Pierre, McCarthy knew that there was a way into the room via the partition. Yet he chose to prise open the doorway from the court with a pickaxe.

Did McCarthy visit any other acts of wanton vandalism on his own property while he was about it? Perhaps the kettle spout never melted off, but fell off as a result of McCarthy's jumping up and down on it?