Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[Elamarna]

David

he won't listen. we have all answers his questions time and time again, but he keeps asking them, I assume he thinks we are going to change our minds without any new evidence!

I made the mistake of arguing over the word removed which didn’t help, but for him to suggest his plan shows the bed near the wall is the largest stretch of imagination I have seen on here in a very long time .

[David Orsam]

but for him to suggest his plan shows the bed near the wall is the largest stretch of imagination I have seen on here in a very long time .

Yes, and the word isn't even "near" the wall. Dr Phillips used the phrase "close against" the wooden partition. As you say, this is not represented in Pierre's diagram, or anything like it.

[Elamarna]

agreed it may support MJK3, but only if the bed is in roughly same position in both photos and not used as a barricade.

[David Orsam]

he won't listen. we have all answers his questions time and time again, but he keeps asking them, I assume he thinks we are going to change our minds without any new evidence!

That is, indeed, one of the most extraordinary things. How many times is he going to ask the exact same questions?

I wouldn't mind if there was some difficulty answering them and we were all squirming. In that case, fine, repeat them. But for him to constantly repeat them without any acknowledgement at all that they have been fully answered is worrying.

[Elamarna]

I notice no response to my post i think its 204 about scientific research.
it annoys me that he claims to be a researcher using a scientific approach. i was employed in scientific research for 35 years and would not have last a week with his attitude.

[David Orsam]

It's perfectly obvious what has happened with Pierre.

He has fallen into the basic schoolboy error of misunderstanding the events of 9 November.

He has read of the long two hour wait outside Kelly's room. He has read of the missing key. He has read of the forcing of the door with an axe. Yet, he has also read of the easy trick of opening the door through the window.

In his ruthlessly scientific mind, it doesn't compute. Missing key, axe, two hour wait, easy entry. Something is wrong.

Then a flash of inspiration. Of course! The door was barricaded!!!!

He's found what everyone has missed these past 125 years. It makes perfect sense that the killer would barricade the door to prevent someone coming in. And he's even discovered in the coroner's question to Prater a suggestion that the door and table was moved around.

Pierre is a genius. He's almost solved this mystery. He just needs to work out how the killer escaped. Through the window? No, he can do much better than this. Minutely inspecting the building plans and the photographs he has discovered another door!! ANOTHER DOOR!!!

Yes, everything now makes sense. The killer came in and out through this door in the wall. He barricaded the front door. That explains the "problems" he believed the police had in getting into the room.

Looking at MJK3 he sees the light, literally. A strip of light which in his own mind can only mean one thing. It is the secret photograph of how the room looked when the police came in through the door in the wall!!!!

So in his own mind he has solved it all. There is nothing that will shake him from his conviction that he, and he alone, has understood the crime scene. It is the New Discourse. Everyone else is so blindly wedded to the traditional explanations that they can't see it.

Unfortunately, as we know, Pierre, with his propensity to leap to conclusions on the basis of misunderstood evidence, has failed to understand that the delay in entering the room was caused by the wait for the bloodhounds. He has totally failed to take into account Dr Phillips' evidence about the layout of the room when he entered it.

Despite this, he cannot abandon the theory. Such abandonment is not in Pierre's nature. He will press on. He will try and distort the evidence to fit his theory. This will never work but he will never give up!

[Robert]

"Jack the Ripper, First Feng Shui Murderer." Available in all good book shops.

[David Orsam]

Or:

"Jack the Barricader: The First Furniture Based Solution to the Whitechapel Murders Mystery"

(Pierre, you can have that one for free)

[Pierre]

Pierre

"Yes. On MJK3 the table IS on the left hand side of the bed, and the bed IS against the partition wall. It is only an issue of WHICH SIDE of the bed is against the partition. Phillips description goes for both.

So this is a matter of interpretation. And history depends on it. Your interpretation depends on the picture you have in your mind: that is the picture from the MJK1 photo.

My interpretation depends on a big questionmark: Which photo is corresponding to Phillips descriptions?
BOTH actually do."

Actually they do not.
he says it is close against the wall which it is not in your plan, there is a large gap.

You are looking at the white plan. for which I used the wrong measures, since I did not have the measures from Goads fire ensurance plan then. So you need to use the right plan. The measures in this plan are valid. And when you do, there is no gap. I publish it here again so you can see it.

"He did not say the body had been "removed", he said that the death cut had taken place with the body on the left hand side of the bed and then moved, not removed across to the centre/right hand side.

You are WRONG Steve: Read the text. Phillips does say it had been removed:

"I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death".

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

he never said the bed was moved, , he said the body was repositioned on the bed after death.

I have never said that Phillips said the bed was removed: The coroner asked Prater this question".

My apologies he did indeed say removed, but we all agree that the body was moved on the bed, obviously a misuse of the word by Phillips in my opinion, to remove means to take away but that is semantics.

Exactly he never said the bed was moved , so why do you say the bed was removed?
There is no evidence of the bed being moved

No need to apologize at all. We all make mistakes because we take things for granted that are not. And I am willing to say I am wrong too. My starting point is that I am always wrong. But I want to go as far as I can with my suggestion and see where it leads.

Quoting the coroners question is not evidence of the bed being moved, you have no idea why he asked the question?
Common sense would suggest that the table appeared to be moved so he asked; But even then we do not know for sure.

Oh, dear. That is almost the worst thing someone can say to me. "Common sense" would suggest.... Steve, have you read any Foucault? There is no such thing as "common sense". It is dangerous. We need to watch out for it. It makes us think things are obvious when in fact they can be very complex. And I dare say, working with historical sources analyzing a forensical historical situation where you have a crime like this one...well, for starters, can we apply "common sense" on Jack the Ripper?


"Comment: I do not mean to be rude but removed means removed. And he says removed. But he is talking about the body and not the bed. The coroner talks about the bed."

see above


"If you will not let me quote MJK3, then you may not quote MJK1. So I can quote the coroner:

[Coroner] Did you hear beds or tables being pulled about? (ibid.)"

Your idea that the bed was barricading the door comes at least in part from your interpretation of MJK3, given that there is NO independent evidence to back this it is a circular argument.

Alright: Please give me every reason you can think of as to why MJK1 should be the photo describing what Bowyer say when he looked through that window. And I will try to show you that you might as well be speaking of MJK3. I will do this only to test the hypothesis that we might have the wrong understanding of the photograph MJK1. And if I am wrong, great!

""No. He didn´t need to tell lies. [u]His descriptions correspond to both MJK3 and MJK1. That is the point with interpreting sources: You must analyze the sources objectively. If you have a bias, like if you are convinced that one photograph gives the right picture of the room, you are bound to interpret everything from that view. And then you may not understand what Phillips said.
.
Of course he did and of course it was. The partition wall is right on top of the bedstead in MJK3! And it runs alongside the bedstead in MJK1! BUT: Phillips did NOT say WHICH SIDE of the beadstead was close against the partition.

One of the reasons we have this problem of interpretation is that the width of the room was very limited!"

In your plan the bed is not close to the wall, an estimate would be from 2ft to 3ft. that is as much as a quarter of the width of the room,

Again: Look at the correct plan with the right measures here.

I have looked at it do not see how you would say that was close to the wall, as i said before you are bending the evidence to fit your theory.


NO. I want to test our understanding of the sources since I think the murder of Kelly is unjustly described in history. I want to put it right. If I can.

"And I have some questions for you and I am very interested in hearing your answers:

If the door was "quite easy" to open, and if we can assume that it was not locked (which is what Abberline seems to say in the inquest):

1. WHY did they have to wait for more than two hours outside?"

how many times do you need to be told the same thing: because Abberline said Beck informed him the dogs were coming and Dr Phillips advised it would be best to wait for the dogs
could you quote the testimony where Abberline says the door was not locked,

I saw those dogs coming. And I think we have to look deeper into that. So I´ll do it later. Alright, as I say Abbeline seems to say the door was not locked: this is of course my interpretation and that is why I wrote "it seems". I don´t know what you think but here it is:

"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."


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


"2. Why should they have to use a pick axe to open the door?"

that’s a good question, the obvious answer is to break the lock.

if it is used to demolish the door because it is barricaded, doesn’t your door in MJK3 look remarkably intact.


Yes, but why break the lock if the door could be opened so easily? Wouldn´t the police have been able to open it without breaking it then?

"Remarkably intact" - we do not have a photograph of the whole door.

"3. And, the perhaps most important question if you are thinking from the perspective of the killer, since he knew what he was going to do to the body of Kelly during at least more than one and a half hour:

Why should the killer NOT barricade the door before starting to perform all the mutilations on Mary Jane Kelly?"

1) where do you get the time span of plus one and a half hours from.

I don´t remember the source so I will search for it and publish it here.

2) that is not evidence that he did. that is your surmising such.

The accepted position is that the door was not barricaded, therefore you have to provide evidence that it was. saying why should he not IS NOT EVIDENCE


Yes, but I am questioning the "accepted position". And since I do, I do it on the same premises as people who believe in the "accepted position" so what are the premises for believing that MJK1 is showing us what Bowyer saw through the window?

Is it the accepted position just because the photo of MJK1 was the first official photo? Is it the accepted position because of that AND because of Phillips testimony? Because what would then be the accepted position if MJK3 would have been the first official source?

We answer your questions ever time, the answers are not going to change unless you supply evidence to change our minds.

Oh. So the "accepted position " is what is allowed and the rest is forbidden stuff. So let´s not change the position.

But of course you are right, you know better than anyone else and we should respect you and you Discourse!

And there it is! I thought I should not write that word but now you did instead.

But the problem is, the discourse is not mine. And I am questioning it.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

My starting point is that I am always wrong.

Finally, some sense from Pierre.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

How large are you making the bed?

With regards to Abberley. Nothing he says suggests the door was unlocked.

And please do find the source for the 1.5 hours.

[David Orsam]

In Pierre's diagram, the bed has expanded in length by 25% from its position against the partition compared to its position when barricading the door.

Perhaps due to all the blood.

[Elamarna]

From your own figures you are saying the bed is 9ft long.

I will not comment. Would others like to?

[Sam Flynn]

In Pierre's diagram, the bed has expanded in length by 25%

A miracle!

"And His father was a carpenter, and at that time made ploughs and yokes. And a certain rich man ordered him to make him a couch. And one of what is called the cross pieces being too short, they did not know what to do. The child Jesus said to His father Joseph: Put down the two pieces of wood, and make them even in the middle. And Joseph did as the child said to him. And Jesus stood at the other end, and took hold of the shorter piece of wood, and stretched it."

(The Infancy Gospel of Thomas.)

[Pierre]

David again.

It´s like finding a pair of socks under the bed every morning.