Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[Elamarna]

OK Pierre,

thank you for the comments.

I will have just one go at explaining what several others here are suggesting.

Firstly you must accept for the point of argument that the table is not across the door as a barricade; know you think it is, but for a moment just accept it is closer to the position in MJK1

Looking at your plan, extreme left hand side, with the "knob", it is suggested that is the door.

The area next to this you call wall is a wall but not the wall you think it is.
the suggestion is that it is the wall from the door to the corner.

If you study the external photo of 13 miller court, the wall from the corner to the small window appears to be much shorter in width than the wall from the door to the corner.

I have seen the distance claimed to be about 1ft.from the door to corner and again the same from corner to window , I suggest it is less than this 1ft from corner to window.
Now what ever distance it is, importantly this is the external distance. inside the room the width of the bricks in the front wall will reduce the distance to the window from the corner.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.
.
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.

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.

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.

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

regards

[David Orsam]

A hypothesis of the position of the camera. Everything within the grey area is what we see on the photograph.

What do you think?

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

Bowyer saw the flesh the first time he pulled the curtain aside and looked through the window (green colour). The second time he saw the body on the bed.

If it was so easy to open the door, why didn´t they?

Why didn´t they break open the door at once?

What did Beck, Abberline and Phillips do for more than 2 hours?

Why did Abberline say nothing about the state of the room at the inquest?

I distinctly remember answering all these questions. Those who don't listen don't learn.

[Pierre]

Position of camera

A hypothesis of the position of the camera. Everything within the grey area is what we see on the photograph.

What do you think?

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

Bowyer saw the flesh the first time he pulled the curtain aside and looked through the window (green colour). The second time he saw the body on the bed.

If it was so easy to open the door, why didn´t they?

Why didn´t they break open the door at once?

What did Beck, Abberline and Phillips do for more than 2 hours?

Why did Abberline say nothing about the state of the room at the inquest?



Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Michael

You have now said this twice. However all the plans I can find show it the other way round.
That is the hinges are on the left edge of the door when viewed from inside the room. With all respect why do you think this? Could you please supply a link to the evidence for this . For once I have to agree with Pierre
Regards
Elamarna

Hi Elamarna,

thanks for asking this question again, I have tried but haven´t got an answer yet.

Yes, as you say, all the plans we can find show us that the hinges are on the left edge of the door. Now:

1. We hypothesize that the hinges were on the left side on the door (from the perspective of someone being in the room and looking at the door). Look at the photo and you will see that.

2. There can not be just 1-2 inches between this door and the window, since there is a corner with a wall on each side. Therefore, we hypothesize that what we see on this photograph is the door to the right in the photograph, with the hinges and light coming through to the left - and further to the left there is the wall.


Now, I do not want to say this is "a fact" - but it is a very good hypothesis. And I would like to ask everyone to try and refute this hypothesis, because if you do, perhaps we can start getting closer to the past and not just write unreliable history about this issue.

Thanks Elamarna for engaging in this discussion, you are a good and critical thinker and I really appreciate that.

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

I don't really see why we have to assume that the door was added at the same time as the partition. There is also the point that the door knob might have come into contact with the window every time the door was opened, unless there was a small inner sill at the bottom of the window.

But more importantly, Phillips said that the table was close to the bed. Now of course in such a tiny room, everything was close to the bed. But it would seem to me a very odd thing for Phillips to say, if he was referring to a table under the window. Of course it was close to the bed. So was the kettle. So was the cupboard. I believe he meant the table loaded with flesh, and this was banged by the door opening towards the bed, not away from it.

I hear you Robert, but I think that the door seems to be oddly placed, and I don't remember ever reading or seeing an example of a Victorian salon that opened to the street or yard. The salon was essentially a construct to offer indoors activities and gatherings, not as a throughway. With the main access door just outside the room...the one under the archway, why would you need another exit 10-15 feet away?

When the room was a salon it existed in #26 Dorset, when it was made accessible to and from only the Courtyard, it became 13 Millers Court.

That's my take on it anyway Robert.

[Robert]

Hi Michael

I don't really see why we have to assume that the door was added at the same time as the partition. There is also the point that the door knob might have come into contact with the window every time the door was opened, unless there was a small inner sill at the bottom of the window.

But more importantly, Phillips said that the table was close to the bed. Now of course in such a tiny room, everything was close to the bed. But it would seem to me a very odd thing for Phillips to say, if he was referring to a table under the window. Of course it was close to the bed. So was the kettle. So was the cupboard. I believe he meant the table loaded with flesh, and this was banged by the door opening towards the bed, not away from it.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

The trouble with the string idea is that the quote in which it's mentioned is unbelievable - Mrs Storey, whoever she was, wasn't the first person to find the body. We can hardly believe that the two women went in, saw the body, then shut the door and went off for a cup of tea.

If the door opened towards the broken window, then how did the table come to be knocked when Phillips entered? This table was close to the bed at the time.

Re the space argument, Mary's room wasn't originally a room - it only became a room once the partition was installed.

Before I respond to the above points, Id like to say I should have expressed the idea as one that makes sense to me rather than as an empirical, thanks Elamarna for the manner in which you reminded me of that.

On the 2 points above Robert, lets not forget that there was also a larger table under the window, the table used for sitting and dining at. It could easily have been a case of the door swinging inward to the left and contacting the corner of that table. The killer could have opened the door very slightly when he left, which I would think might be the case in the event someone unexpected walks by the door as he leaves and glances in.

On the point about it being an ex parlour...that's a key here..it wasn't a room of the courtyard until that door was added, and evidence of that is that when that door was added it was put too close to the corner based on the images. That's likely to minimize the impact that door would have on such a small space, since it would swing inward due to the courtyard. What that means to me is that when the door was added it would be done so that the operation of it would swing inward and to the left side of the room, not to the middle.

I know some people disagree, I know Simon Woods dissertation suggests that the shaft of light was created on the hinged side of the door, but I am still of the belief that without definitive evidence on this a review of the practicalities can illuminate the likely arrangement.

[MysterySinger]

I believe the door would have opened from left to right as indicated in the picture and banged on the table as it swung open when entered following Kelly's murder. The handle and catch being on that side would have been more accessible from the window. Not sure it would have been that easy to do though.

[Wickerman]

I would have thought the journalist/artist could have seen first-hand which side the door knob was on.

[Pcdunn]

Hi, Elamarna,

I don't disagree about MJK1 being a fairly true representation of the interior of Mary's room and the scene of her corpse. Makes sense to me.

[Elamarna]

Michael.

With no disrespect meant, it is obvious from you last post that you genuinely consider the door opened that way, Never the less it is an opinion and nothing more.

your reasoning for this seem clear:

The use of string to open the latch, you quote:

"Now next morning a Mrs Storey who was always in and out of Mary's room to have a pinch of snuff and a chat, was the first person to find the terrible body."

Now that is not the storey as I understand it, no pun intended, surely Bowyer found the body, therefore the evidence that string was used may also be questionable.
Even if it is accurate it does not preclude the latch being on the right side of the door, string could still be used the reach from the window would be well over a foot and string would prevent any cuts from the broken glass.

Your reasoning based on viewing the body immediately the door is opened is
presumably based on the quote:

"The spectacle that was presented on the door being thrown open was ghastly in the extreme."

That quote does not make it clear that it was immediately viewable, indeed they already knew what to expect before opening the door.

There are plans on this site for 13 millers court, they appear to show the opposite to your view.

Too often opinion is given as fact, surely we should be challenging opinion if there appears to be no hard evidence to back the opinion up.

This does not mean that your view is incorrect, just that it is a strongly held view which may or may not be right

yours respectfully

Elamarna







"The spectacle that was presented on the door being thrown open was ghastly in the extreme. The body of Mary Kelly was so horribly hacked and gashed that, but for the long hair, it was scarcely possible to say with any certainty that it was the body of a woman lying entirely naked on the wretched bed, with legs outspread and drawn up to the trunk". Mary would not be immediately visible if the door swung inward to the left, the door would block the view of most of the bed. Another reason is the limitations of the room size, in a 10 x 10 room the door would swing to a

[Robert]

Hi Michael

The trouble with the string idea is that the quote in which it's mentioned is unbelievable - Mrs Storey, whoever she was, wasn't the first person to find the body. We can hardly believe that the two women went in, saw the body, then shut the door and went off for a cup of tea.

If the door opened towards the broken window, then how did the table come to be knocked when Phillips entered? This table was close to the bed at the time.

Re the space argument, Mary's room wasn't originally a room - it only became a room once the partition was installed.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael there's no way that Mary, or Joe, or King Kong could have reached the catch if it was on the far side of the door.

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

If you consider a door that swung inward towards the bed, and one that swings inward towards the table under the windows, it may seem a bit clearer. We also have a quote from Mary Ann Cox about how Mary accessed her spring latch..."Now next morning a Mrs Storey who was always in and out of Mary's room to have a pinch of snuff and a chat, was the first person to find the terrible body. Mary had a string on the door so anybody visiting had no need to knock. She dashed next door to my aunt and they both went in. My aunt never forgot the sight she saw". If the spring latch was placed on the inside right of the door it would have been easily reachable from the broken pane,..from the windows courtyard edge to the courtyard corner of the room was less than 2 feet.

It seems to me that she may have jury-rigged a solution to reach the spring latch with the string. That string solution may come into play when assessing how the killer got in.

As for why I believe the door swung inward towards the table under the windows..."The spectacle that was presented on the door being thrown open was ghastly in the extreme. The body of Mary Kelly was so horribly hacked and gashed that, but for the long hair, it was scarcely possible to say with any certainty that it was the body of a woman lying entirely naked on the wretched bed, with legs outspread and drawn up to the trunk". Mary would not be immediately visible if the door swung inward to the left, the door would block the view of most of the bed. Another reason is the limitations of the room size, in a 10 x 10 room the door would swing to a wall, not the room interior..thats simple space management.

Ive checked lots of images of Victorian doors and how they were hung, they vary, but the deciding factor is what they swing in to. In Marys case a door would swing away from the entrant and the room, not inward toward the bed.

[Elamarna]

Hi PCdunn

I almost agree with you, and did until I played around with the levels and curves in GIMP. that suggested that the strip was separate from everything else, and seemed to Agree with Simon Woods comments written in 2005. I know that he has now changed his mind on most of what he wrote, and has said he has a revelation in the 2nd edition of his book, so that may answers some questions on MJK3; or maybe not.
MJK3 proves very little in my opinion, mainly because we cannot be sure of what we see in the background, nor the exact position of the camera in the room.

I think the point is that the vast majority, feel MJK1 is an accurate representation of the scene , given it is backed by the statements of Bowyer and Phillips.
would you disagree with that?

regards

Elamarna

[Dr. John Watson]

Thanks for the nice buggy ride.

John