Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[GUT]

Just to say Steve, for what it's worth, that, while I know you might regard it as a frustrating waste of time, I think you should carry on replying to Pierre, rather than ignoring him, because your posts are read (by me, at least, and others I'm sure) and are very effective.

As are yours David.

[Elamarna]

IchabodCrane

your point about the corner being hidden by an open door is very valid.

This Alternative has been offer to Pierre already, it appears he cannot see it.
it could be a case of "not seeing the wood for the trees"

regards

.

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Pierre,
I am sorry but your sketch doesn't match MJK3 at all: the strip of light should be behind the table, not next to the table. Remember the door opens on the window side and is hinged on the far side? Your floor plan doesn't match this. Also one can see on MJK3 that the strip of light would be too far from anywhere to be able to reach with an outstretched arm to unlatch it. My take is: the door on MJK3 is ajar, the bed was moved a little bit to an angle from the wall, so the camera could be placed. There is an angle of something like 60 degrees between the table and the door behind it. The corner of the room would then actually be hidden behind the door.
Regards,
IchabodCrane

[Elamarna]

Nothing to do with my feelings.

I have been a profession scientist for 30 + yhttp://forum.casebook.org/images/editor/attach.gifears I only deal in evidence.
If I am not sure I will say so. That is why the word probably is used often, because for much of this subject we have no certainties.

Yesterday, I challenged Michael, on his statement that the door was hinged on the right,.
The point made was that it was his opinion which he honestly believed in; but that it was only an opinion and he should not be presenting it as fact, even if it could later be proved to be so. The post was polite, as was the recent long post to you.
Michael accepted they comments and said so.

You either cannot see other peoples view point or won't that is your right.
However if you insist on maintaining a position on a subject, others will challenge you to support your opinion with hard facts.

A few weeks back I made a comment about the use of the word apartment, I was corrected on this by other posters, shown the evidence to back their viewpoint . and happily accepted I was wrong and said so on the message board.

Ok light and shadow: there is a light source from the right.

This light produces highlights over the whole of the photo.

I am sorry but your explanation of "shadowy" parts is pure nonsense:
It suggest your knowledge of photograph is less than complete. I am prepared to accept that this may be incorrect, and if so I apologise unreservedly.

If an area is in shadow, it is darker, therefore any light source in that area shows up more strongly than in bright light.
The light strip in your version is from the door, and would be under the table which is against the door, it would stand out like a beacon.
Check it your self, use a chair, put it close to a window, under the chair is dark right?
place a a light source under the chair, say the leds on a cell/mobile phone
do you not see the led?


On a more scientific level open the image in photo software, it doesn't need to be photoshop.

Correct the exposure to give a longer exposure (lighten the image), this brings out dark objects which have been under exposed, the "knob" is very clear.

Now decrease the exposure, (darken the image) items which have been over exposed, that is very bright ,are now less so.

At no stage is there any light under the table, now I accept the space is limited, and that there could be a drape, but you should expect to see something of the strip if it was there

This is not photo manipulation, it is basic exposure control.

I have no set views on the subject, and am happy to look at any new ideas or theories. However i will challenge anything where there is a lack of obvious evidence.
Pierre you support your position by asking about:

The question from the coroner about beds and tables being pulled around.
The leg has fallen down on MJK1.
The working position for the killer is right on MJK3.
The problems with entering the room.
The possibility of another entrance and escape way from 13 Miller´s Court through 26 Dorset Street.
The photograph MJK3 itself.
This photograph having been kept secret for decades.


You have your own opinions and views on these that is obvious; but the same applies as did with Michael last night, there is no evidence in any of those points, it is your view and interpretation of them with it appears nothing to support your view other than the belief that the view given is correct.


why did the coronor say this, why was the door not opened, could the killer have used another door, the photogr
the problem is that y

[David Orsam]

So much that he must answer anything I write.

I only answer the nonsensical posts which require correction, Pierre.

Oh yeah, so you are correct, I do answer everything you write.

[Pierre]

David likes me.

So much that he must answer anything I write. Carry on, David! Time is money!

[David Orsam]

Thank you David,

you beat me to the reply.
closed mind I am afraid

steve aka Elamarna

Just to say Steve, for what it's worth, that, while I know you might regard it as a frustrating waste of time, I think you should carry on replying to Pierre, rather than ignoring him, because your posts are read (by me, at least, and others I'm sure) and are very effective.

[David Orsam]

So what do you really think about the hypothesis about the light and shadow?

Heh! What does Elamarna really think? I believe the answer, Pierre, is that your hypothesis is rejected.

[Pierre]

Point proven I am afraid,
you are incapable of accepting any view point but your own.

We are not writing to prove things about me. Our discussion is about the killer.

I have given you the collected views of several persons some of which I do not agree with, but can see they have merit. However you only agree, if it fits your theory.
your replies to my comments are taken a line at a time, asking question which I answer in the next line, that is pointless!

Your supporting evidence is not evidence, it is your opinion and superposition.

For a researcher you show a remarkable lack of understanding of evidence

I think you have got some problem with mixing your own feelings into the discussion.

You refuse to accept the statements given at the inquest as being accurate. and indeed have suggested that the persons perjured themselves.

I am not refusing anything. I have asked anyone to try and refute the hypotheses about MJK3. But instead of discussions about MJK3 there are accusations.

Using your own criteria, of using data from the period; can you explain why your modern day thoughts and musings are superior to that data.

I don´t think in terms of "superiority". I try new interpretations and hypotheses. If you prefer the old ones, I have no problem with that.

But I allow myself to think freely about the material we have got.

No one has come up with a good theory about Jack the Ripper. They haven´t even come up with a good explanation.

To say that he was a "lunatic" means nothing, for instance.

Discussing various aspects of other data pieces than the ones giving me the ID of the killer is interesting for me. But it is not interesting when you become accused by others. Emotions should stay out of research.

So what do you really think about the hypothesis about the light and shadow? You have been working with photography. Have you got anything to contribute to this?

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Thank you David,

you beat me to the reply.
closed mind I am afraid

steve aka Elamarna

[Elamarna]

Point proven I am afraid,
you are incapable of accepting any view point but your own.

I have given you the collected views of several persons some of which I do not agree with, but can see they have merit. However you only agree, if it fits your theory.
your replies to my comments are taken a line at a time, asking question which I answer in the next line, that is pointless!

Your supporting evidence is not evidence, it is your opinion and superposition.

For a researcher you show a remarkable lack of understanding of evidence

You refuse to accept the statements given at the inquest as being accurate. and indeed have suggested that the persons perjured themselves.

Using your own criteria, of using data from the period; can you explain why your modern day thoughts and musings are superior to that data.

[David Orsam]

And supporting evidence for the hypothesis of the barricading of the door is:

The question from the coroner about beds and tables being pulled around.
The leg has fallen down on MJK1.
The working position for the killer is right on MJK3.
The problems with entering the room.
The possibility of another entrance and escape way from 13 Miller´s Court through 26 Dorset Street.
The photograph MJK3 itself.
This photograph having been kept secret for decades.

Ah right, so no evidence at all then.

Because:

The coroner was not at room 13 Miller's Court when the police entered so he only knew what was in the evidence before him. That evidence included the fact that the table was in an unnatural position because the door knocked into it, suggesting that the furniture had been moved, hence his question.

There were no problems with entering the room, other than the fact that the door was locked but that was easily remedied.

The "possibility" of another entrance and escape way is not evidence of anything.

To support your argument as to what MJK3 shows by referring to MJK3 itself can only be described as madness.

The photograph was not "kept secret". Assuming it is genuine, it would appear to have been stolen then returned many years later.

I don't understand the significance or meaning of "The leg has fallen down on MJK1" nor your claims about "the working position" of the killer but it clearly does not provide any evidence at all.

The sworn evidence as to the layout of the furniture in the room upon entry was given by the divisional surgeon at the inquest - it corroborates MJK1 - and that's all there is to it.

[Pierre]

There is now have a faint line on the area you label wall a few inches from the light strip, this could be the corner, the image as it stands is not clear enough to be conclusive on this. personally i am not convince, but that is my opinion i could be wrong and it could indeed be the corner.

But there is no angle there. How can you have a corner without an angle?

There is yet another alternative, that is the door is open and is thus obscuring the wall to the corner, this I fear cannot be entirely ruled out

What is the strip of light then?

We have another unknown, in that we do not know the depth and width of the window Ceil, if indeed it had any and was not just a hole with glass. this is something I do not feel anyone can be sure of. A wide Ceil would mean the curtains would be near to the corner of the room than if they just covered the window.

But where is the corner? The furniture are in a straight position and parallell with the wall and door whatever the width or depth of the ceil.

The light strip it is suggested is from where there is a gap in the curtain, the area you call door being said curtain.

And if that is the curtain the distance to the entrance door is far to long.

I have asked repeatedly, that if the light is from the hinge side of the door, why is there no trace of it under the table, there is a small space there between the body and the table top bottom and the light should show in this space.
I have seen the suggestion that there are drapes over the edge of the table, but this has not been proved.

That is easy to answer. And I think that your own experience from photography could come in handy here. The light is coming in through the window. Look at the highlighted parts in the photo. And look at where the shadowy parts meet the light: The light is coming in from above and it makes everything beneath the highlighted areas look dark.

There is the possibility that the strip is something reflecting light hanging from the ceiling I think this is unlikely, but it could be produced by processing either of the original plate or of the later print.

I agree. And it is a far-fetched hypothesis and quite redundant. The most natural explanation is the most probable.

The light from the window is probably not strong enough, given it was overcast, and well into the afternoon, to produce the highlights seen in MJK3. there was probably an artificial light source to the right of the photo.

You write the word "probably" 2 times. But what does the photograph show us?

The blind spot you have on this is that you cannot see that the table MAY NOT BE ACROSS THE DOOR. may i suggest that you are making the mistake of fitting your theory(the door was barricaded) to how you see the available evidence. the fault of most suspect books in fact.

I see no window. There should have been a window if the photo was taken from the position of the other side of the room. I see a strip of light where there is no window. It cannot be a crack in the brick wall. I see hinges where there should only be a window.

Finally there is nothing produced on this thread to suggest that Bowyer statement does not describe the view in MJK1, and that it is not true.

Yes. He saw the flesh first, that is, the first time he looked. He did not see the body then. But if the position of the furniture was as i MJK1, he would have seen both at the same time.

Supporting evidence for this is the statement of Dr Phillips and MJK1 itself.

And supporting evidence for the hypothesis of the barricading of the door is:

The question from the coroner about beds and tables being pulled around.
The leg has fallen down on MJK1.
The working position for the killer is right on MJK3.
The problems with entering the room.
The possibility of another entrance and escape way from 13 Miller´s Court through 26 Dorset Street.
The photograph MJK3 itself.
This photograph having been kept secret for decades.


regards

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

Yes, Elamarna, I think we can hypothesize that he has these imaginary door hinges of his on the brain which is making him unhinged.

We can also hypothesize that he is unable to process evidence or information which is contrary to his own fixed beliefs. I do not want to say this is "a fact" - but it is a very good hypothesis. And, you know what, I would like to ask everyone to try and not refute this hypothesis, because if you do not, perhaps we can start getting closer to the past and not just write unreliable Pierre-like history about this issue.

[Elamarna]

David

you are absolutely right i have just spent 20 minutes trying to explain to him and i am sure he will come back not accepting any of it.

He has his theory so everything must fit it. Evidence must be twisted, ignored or invented to serve the theory.

I can see no evidence what so ever that supports his plan.