Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[Elamarna]

Many thanks Jeff

that’s the view I have been trying to make since this thread started.

Have said this is not a new idea but the OP appears to have missed it.

Instead, we have the suggestion of a conspiracy, the continual manipulation of data to fit a theory; in the last 2 days, we have seen the bed position and length change 3 times.
This followed the view that the testimony of Dr Phillips had been misinterpreted and in fact meant the head of the bed, not the left hand side, was close against the partition wall.

[Elamarna]

Dear Pierre

On Sunday in post 205 on this thread you said

"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:”


I replied:


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


your reply was

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

several hours later I asked

“And please do find the source for the 1.5 hours”

your reply was

“Don´t tell me to find things Steve. Instead, forget about the 1.5 hours. If you are not a pitbull, which I believe you aren´t.”

That response was uncalled for, I had politely reminded you that you had said you would back your statement up.

Can I respectfully ask that You supply the message board with the source for this data which in your own words.was "perhaps most important question" with regards to why a barricade was needed.

[Jeff Leahy]

Many thanks Jeff

that’s the view I have been trying to make since this thread started.

Have said this is not a new idea but the OP appears to have missed it.

Instead, we have the suggestion of a conspiracy, the continual manipulation of data to fit a theory; in the last 2 days, we have seen the bed position and length change 3 times.
This followed the view that the testimony of Dr Phillips had been misinterpreted and in fact meant the head of the bed, not the left hand side, was close against the partition wall.

Hi Elamarna

Sorry to step on your toes, i admit I haven't following the thread since the beginning..

We had to reconstruct the bedroom in a studio, and its pretty cramped with cameras...So we build't fause walls that could be removed to focus the various lenses.... Not that we ever got it spot on...a representation

But your doing a great job

Yours Jeff

PS Re the witness....Sarah Cox describes dorset street as having a number of Carman making deliveries to market 5 am. This would be around the time that Diddles the cat woke Mrs Prater 3.45 am who was in the court at 5.30 who saw people harnessing horses. So what if the police traced a man working in Dorset street, a Carman, who bumped into someone leaving Millers court?

[Robert St Devil]

Steve.
Hi and thanks. Firstly i have not abandoned my window theory; i e just been doing some of pierres homework be ause i need to see if his theory is more accurate than mine.

I didn't make ve the table lower bc the crack up f light looks to be coming from behind that lump of 'flesh' sitting at the edge of the table. Meaning, most of the door is going to be to the right of the table, and UNBARRICADED.

If you move the bed closer to the partition door, the door becomes even more unbarricaded.

I think ive found the flaw in my thinking. You know i think mjk3 shows a door and window but I couldn't resolve the distance between the corner of the wall and the window. It seemed a lot larger distance than the 9 or 12" i was using for the measurement of the brick. But im thinking the same type of brick that they used between the two windows was used also at the corner of the wall. The distanc, as ive indicated, is 1.5 ft. This means, the door is 1.5 feet off the edge of the corner.

[Elamarna]

Jeff,

you are not stepping on my toes at all, i appreciate comments and help from seasoned members.

Interesting idea about the Carmen.was is Sagar who said it wasn't until the Kelly murder they got a solid lead, could that be a link?

From what i have seen of your views, i think maybe we are both looking in the same direction, at the same kind of suspect.

elamarna

[Elamarna]

Steve.
Hi and thanks. Firstly i have not abandoned my window theory; i e just been doing some of pierres homework be ause i need to see if his theory is more accurate than mine.


Never crossed my mind that you had, the knob is very suggestive, although for all the reasons we have been over time and time again is not conclusive.
however in all probability it is a door knob

I didn't make ve the table lower bc the crack up f light looks to be coming from behind that lump of 'flesh' sitting at the edge of the table. Meaning, most of the door is going to be to the right of the table, and UNBARRICADED.


I base my opinion on the photograph, the view point of the camera is slightly to the right of the light strip, we are looking at an angle over the table.This suggests taking the various optical effects into account that the table ( in Pierre’s view) is covering at least one third of the door but no more than half.

If you move the bed closer to the partition door, the door becomes even more unbarricaded.

Agreed, this must be why the bed size has been changed over the last few days, it is the only way of getting the head of the bed nearer to the partition.

I think ive found the flaw in my thinking. You know i think mjk3 shows a door and window but I couldn't resolve the distance between the corner of the wall and the window. It seemed a lot larger distance than the 9 or 12" i was using for the measurement of the brick. But im thinking the same type of brick that they used between the two windows was used also at the corner of the wall. The distanc, as ive indicated, is 1.5 ft. This means, the door is 1.5 feet off the edge of the corner.

Have you considered that if we are looking at the view you and I generally agree on, that the door could be open, lack of light from such an opening could be because either the passage way gives little light at that time of day OR maybe the light has been blocked off to help with the exposure, this could be achieved by suspending a sheet or such like in the doorway. this would certainly help your distances, the light strip would become a centre parting between two curtains

If you have read the post by Jeff, you will see they have looked at this before and reconstructed the room in a studio. apparently the result favoured our view.

[Observer]

Hook line and sinker

Been a while since I visited, however, I see Pierre has all the usual suspects still firmly in place on the end of his line !

hahaha

[Jeff Leahy]

Interesting idea about the Carmen.was is Sagar who said it wasn't until the Kelly murder they got a solid lead, could that be a link?

Yes yes indeed he did. I'm hoping to pick up on this in the new year with Karsten Giese who has made some interesting speculation. Of course there are problems, why did it take them so long to track down the witness? If the witness was already aware of the family he would have known they were of Jewish origin.

But your correct something happened at Millers Court that changed the killers pattern... that would be true which ever suspect you favour

Yours Jeff

[Observer]

It should be said however, that the solid lead obtained after the Kelly murder did not come to fruition

[Observer]

Indeed, isn't it fair to say that, (apart from a few blustering high ranking officials claiming they knew who the killer was) after the furore had died down, as 1888 moved into 1889, and as the years rolled by, the police were no wiser as to the identity of the killer, as they were at the of the beginning of their search.

[Jeff Leahy]

Indeed, isn't it fair to say that, (apart from a few blustering high ranking officials claiming they knew who the killer was) after the furore had died down, as 1888 moved into 1889, and as the years rolled by, the police were no wiser as to the identity of the killer, as they were at the of the beginning of their search.

Hi Observer

Thats not quite true is it? Anderson clearly doesn't have a clue by August 1889, where he is still talking about police failure to catch the man..

However by 1892 he's changed this to a story about a 'Maniac revelling in blood'

So something happens between these dates to change his mind and bang slap in the middle Kozminski enters Colney Hatch Asylum...

Abberline who transfers around May 1889, presumably because the case has gone cold, is always aware of the two story's around his old department but tends to dismiss them... which suggests what ever happened happened after his transfer

Cox and Sagar both believed they were tracking the killer, who was placed in a Private Asylum in Surrey

MacNaughten doesn't have a clue what happened after March 1889 but prefers the drowned Doctor theory and counts Kelly as the last murder. This may be a theory he formed early on during his own investigations and before joining the MET.

Yours Jeff

[Observer]

Hi Jeff

I did allude to Anderson in my previous post, and the passing of the years. And, although Abberline wound up a few reporters in 1903, (I beleive his revelation that Chapman was the killer to be rather tongue in cheek.) I don't believe Abberline had a clue to the identity of the killer either. One of the most astute detectives, Reid, believed the police didn't get close to catching the Ripper.

As far as Kosminski is concerneed, are we to believe that only Anderson and Swanson conducted the investigation into whether he was the killer or not? Other officers must have been involved in his investigation. Who accompanied the witness when he was taken to see Kosminski at the Convalescent home? Presuming it took place of course. Concerning human nature, and as the officers involved came to the end of their lives, Isn't it rather telling that not one smidgen of tittle tattle emerged other than what we have from Anderson Swanson, and Macnaughton?

Regards

Observer

[Elamarna]

Jeff
I would love to have an in depth discussion at some stage in the future, about K. This is not the thread for that.

Just one question, in your opinion are Sagar and Cox looking at the same man at the same time? my view is its at a different time.

[Elamarna]

Been a while since I visited, however, I see Pierre has all the usual suspects still firmly in place on the end of his line !

hahaha

Hi Observer,

no he has not got us firmly in place. some of us did ignore him for a while, but he continued to post, and started more and more threads. for those reasons i began posting again.

anyway good to have your observations.

Elamarna

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff
I did allude to Anderson in my previous post, and the passing of the years.

Hi Observer, I sort of thought you were, so a little naughty of me

And, although Abberline wound up a few reporters in 1903, (I beleive his revelation that Chapman was the killer to be rather tongue in cheek.) I don't believe Abberline had a clue to the identity of the killer either.

Abberline 1903 'and you must understand that e have never believed all those stories about JtR being dead, or that he was a lunatic. or anything of that kind'

You are of course correct, I think it doubtful aubergine seriously considered Chapman JtR. But what he says does seem to support the idea that the lunatic theory was entrenched in his old department by this date. Of course his reference to Jack being dead could be Kozminski or Druit, depends how you read it.... but then as I said Abberline transferred around May 1889, so what ever trial they were on they never got their man.

One of the most astute detectives, Reid, believed the police didn't get close to catching the Ripper.

True. But then Reid does alude to a suspect who drinks at the Princess Allice and lived near Berner street... If this is the same man described by Sagar and Cox, then he's correct about not getting anyone.

As far as Kosminski is concerneed, are we to believe that only Anderson and Swanson conducted the investigation into whether he was the killer or not?

Today it might be a long jump of faith...but in 1888? Obviously other officers would have been involved in 1890, but they like Swanson were obviously sworn to secrecy, as Monroe stated 'its a Hot potato'

Other officers must have been involved in his investigation. Who accompanied the witness when he was taken to see Kosminski at the Convalescent home?

There were almost certainly other officers involved in 1890, if what Swanson describes is true. And i can see no reason why he would lie or make stuff up to himself?

Presuming it took place of course. Concerning human nature, and as the officers involved came to the end of their lives, Isn't it rather telling that not one smidgen of tittle tattle emerged other than what we have from Anderson Swanson, and Macnaughton?

Well there is other tittle tattle: Cox , Sagar to a less extent Smith and of course Monroe who claims wild horses wouldn't drag it from him...

I'd say there was a lot of evidence to support Anderson and Swansons story, the only real problem is why the pieces of the jig saw don't appear to fit...

But thats all rather off thread and topic and something I'd prefer to address longer in the new year..

Regards Observer

I trust you have a Merry Xmas and a Happy new year

all the best Jeff