Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[Observer]

Hi Jeff

The senior officers involved were desperate for a solution to the murders. As in any big inquiry there were no shortage of suspects, with many "flavours of the month" being discarded as it became clear they were innocent of the crimes. The case was long dead when those officers began to recount their involvment in the crimes, and time played an important part in distorting their memory's somewhat.

I'm sure Sagar Cox, Monroe et al had serious suspicions with regard to certain suspects, but to to state the beleedin obvious no one was ever charged with the crimes. In effect every lead proved fruitless.

Again, regarding Kosminsk, I'm surprised no officer other than Anderson,(and he not actualy giving his name) Swanson and Macnaughton mentioned him as a suspect. It seems to me as if Anderson was the sole beleiver in Kosminski's guilt.

Hope you also have a merry Xmass and a happy New Year

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Observer,
no he has not got us firmly in place.

Haha You are but plaice in his net Elamarna.

Regards

Observer

[Elamarna]

Hi Observer

Shark if you please.

have a good xmas

Elamarna

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff
The senior officers involved were desperate for a solution to the murders. As in any big inquiry there were no shortage of suspects, with many "flavours of the month" being discarded as it became clear they were innocent of the crimes. The case was long dead when those officers began to recount their involvment in the crimes, and time played an important part in distorting their memory's somewhat.

Hi Observer...rather off thread here. To address properly some complication. But the distortion of memory is an assumption often raised. I don't believe there is any evidence this is certain. Macnaughten of course made errors on Druit but the explanation for that is by his own admission he worked from memory, on Kozminski I believe he had the file infront of him so was far more accurate. I guess the often raised error is that Swanson and the police department general believed Koz was dead when he was still alive... Anderson also seems to have believed this... But there are two reasonable explanations 1. He was informed Koz was dead when he was transferred 2. The old master spy master deliberately created the myth knowing koz was beyond cure, to protect the family. He did after all never reveal the name and took great care not to do so. In my opinion he only ever said what he did about the suspect because he genuinely believed the police required more powers and the law should be changed (Luckily it never was) Yours Jeff

Hope you also have a merry Xmass and a happy New Year Regards Observer

Many thanks...still panicking that no cards have been posted, the fridge is emptie and its less that a week to go...Ah!

[Robert St Devil]

Historical accuracy means checking your pride at the door and sitting down to a plate of crow sometimes.

THE SHEFFIELD DAILY TELEGRAPH, November 18, 1888

HOW THE MURDERER EScAPED

The murderer must have got out of the window, as the door was barricaded from the inside with the bedstead.

[Elamarna]

Robert,

reported 9 days after murder
provincial paper.
Do you have access to the storey and who the writer was?

it does not agree with any other known source so one must be careful. we know from todays papers that not everything published is true.

However it does give one cause to think.
historical accuracy demands you do not take a single source as proof.

another report of same would be more telling

[Robert St Devil]

Steve,
Sorry, shouldve wrote nov 12. I found an archive thread saying J Tulley referenced the DT nov 12 edition for his layout. Went looking and found this. So the sheffield DT is a different paper? Im Texas so English history and geography stumps me.

[Elamarna]

Historical accuracy means checking your pride at the door and sitting down to a plate of crow sometimes.

THE SHEFFIELD DAILY TELEGRAPH, November 18, 1888

HOW THE MURDERER EScAPED

The murderer must have got out of the window, as the door was barricaded from the inside with the bedstead.

Robert,

I have just checked the article, you have the date wrong its the 12th.

apart from what you quoted brief report. no details?

comments from others please

[Elamarna]

no problem,

yes different papers

its was a small regional paper. on 8 pages

obviously this is known about, so we wait for others who may have discussed it in past to comment i think.

I have to say I am inclined not to believe it without some form of back up.

it could be it was retracted or corrected at a later date., certainly no follow up in November i could find

what was the thread?

Given that we know Pierre has spent time reading the site, i wonder if this is where is idea came from.

[Robert St Devil]

Wickerman posted it in the TOILeTS IN MILLERS COURT archive thread.

You're 100% correct. No jumping to conclusions, just more mining for answers.

[Rosella]

^ Sheffield is in the midlands of England. If the provincial newspaper was important and prestigious enough (like the Manchester Guardian) they sometimes had their own London correspondents, but I don't think this is the case here. The paper's taken copy from a London daily IMO, and I don't think it's accurate.

Surely if the bed was barricading the door of Mary's room that circumstance would have turned up in inquest testimony, official reports and in the main London newspapers?

[Elamarna]

Robert

Of course I think on the Saturday The STAR claimed that McCarthy found the body, entered the room, then left it, locking it before going for the police.

Obviously all of that is wrong. this is way i find newspapers unreliable as historical documents.

What’s the saying, " one swallow does not a summer make" or something like that

Steve

[Elamarna]

Rosella,

being a Londoner,

I would call Sheffield the North, but thats me.

I agree with you, looking at the actual article its only a few lines long, seems to give its source as Central News, also states firmly murder occurred at 2 in morning.

if it was acurate, surely other papers would have picked up on it.

my post on the Star storey shows how they got it wrong often.

Elamarna

[Pierre]

Walter Dew remembers

Hi,

At the inquest, Bowyer testified:

" There was a curtain. I put my hand through the broken pane and lifted the curtain.

I saw two pieces of flesh lying on the table.

[Coroner] Where was this table ? - In front of the bed, close to it.

The second time I looked I saw a body on this bed, and blood on the floor.

Why did Bowyer not see the body on the bed the first time he looked in through the window?

Can this be the reason why he did not see the body the first time? The table was "in front of the bed" if you were trying to enter the room:

In his memoirs Detective Constable Walter Dew tells us the state of the room and what he did and saw when he first arrived at Miller´s Court:


Source: http://casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.walterdew.html

"The room was pointed out to me. I tried the door. It would not yield. So I moved to the window, over which, on the inside, an old coat was hanging to act as a curtain and to block the draught from the hole in the glass.

Inspector Beck pushed the coat to one side and peered through the aperture. A moment later he staggered back with his face as white as a sheet.

"For God's sake, Dew," he cried. " Don't look."

I ignored the order, and took my place at the window.

When my eyes had become accustomed to the dim light I saw a sight which I shall never forget to my dying day.

The whole horror of that room will only be known to those of us whose duty it was to enter it. The full details are unprintable.

There was a table just beneath the window. On the bed, which was drawn obliquely across the small room, was all that remained of a good-looking and buxom young woman."

This is how I think we should interpret what Walter Dew did and saw:

1. "I tried the door. It would not yield."

Interpretation: Because it was barricaded with the table and bed. (Abberline´s statement in the inquest implies that the door wasn´t locked. And the police DID actually try to open the door. So the long waiting outside the room, which can´t have happened, was not an issue of waiting for any dogs. They must have entered the room through the other door from the front room. And MJK3 confirms this since the entrance door is still barricaded by the table and bed in this photo. But the question is: WHY couldn´t the police reveal this?).

2. "There was a table just beneath the window."

Interpretation: The table with flesh on it that Bowyer saw.

(Perhaps people have for a long time wrongly thought that there were two tables in the room. There might have been, and there might have been only one.)

3. "On the bed, which was drawn obliquely across the small room, was all that remained of a good-looking and buxom young woman."

Interpretation: The murderer had moved the bed to barricade the door. (Easy to understand since the room was on the ground floor).

Bowyer and Dew were among the first to see the room and both give a description of the room that fits MJK3 perfectly.

And at the inquest the coroner asked Prater if she had heard beds or tables being pulled around.

So now, having read Dew´s Memoirs after having seen the photograph, and after having read Bowyer´s statement and the coroner´s question in the inquest, I think that this is the right interpretation of how the room actually looked.

We have several independent sources stating this. So this is no longer "a suggestion" but I say it is a fact.


(I already know what you, Steve, will say. And I know the problems with interpreting the sources. I respect your "view" as you often call it and your claim that your view is "general". So you may post what you want here. But this time, since I already know what you think and have read it so many times, I will not go into discussion with you on this.)

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

No you do not know what i will say.

I will say is is arrogant to say it is a fact.

But I know you suspect