Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[Elamarna]

Dear Robert,

I have spent the last few days, looking at as much data as i can on the photos.

The work of Richardh has had a great influence on me.

my view for what it is worth is :

1.MJK1/2 was taken using natural light and was taken from the larger window and was the first picture taken. it is my view that this is the crime scene as first found.

2. The bed and table were moved after the taking of the first photo, there was an attempt to try and retain the relative positions of both to each other, but there was movement of at least a few inches in their relative positions.
The purpose of this may have been to to allow the photographer easier access for MJK3.

3. MJK3 was probably taken with the bed moved, by the police, nearer to the centre of the room, but certainly not as a barricade by the killer.

4. The knob you see is the door knob and thus that area is the right hand side of the door , and not as the OP thinks the wall.

5. Whatever the light strip is, it is not light from the hinged side of the door.
I now believe it is unlikely to be light from the window, which I do however think is in the shot where you think it is.

6. The possibilities for the light strip are: processing effect, something suspended from the ceiling, near the corner of the room and thus out of shot in MJK1/2.

This is a link to richardh work.

https://autumnofterror.wordpress.com/type/video/

the threads discussing this are currently on page 3 of the Mary Kelly threads

regards

[FrankO]

The official inquest papers include Bowyer stating:
"... I pulled the curtain aside and I looked in and saw two lumps of flesh laying on the table ["to be"- deleted] close against the bed, in front of the bed." So, there you have it. When he looked through the window, he saw the table in front of him with the bed behind it.

All the best,
Frank

[Elamarna]

Dear Robert,

I am afraid it is no good, People will not see what they don't want to see.
if the light is cutting the table in half so what?
if as you suggest the bed is against the partition, or nearly so then from that angle of the shot the light would appear to cut the table, as in the photo

In reality of course this is due to the angle of the shot, and the strip of light is much nearer to the head of the table than it appears.

one point which does support you is that only 3 explanations make any sense for the light stopping above the table.

1.it is a fault in processing the photo.

2. it is something suspended from the ceiling , illuminated by the light source used, there are other threads and such on site discussing this idea.

3. it is light from the window, where the curtain meets.

it is certainly Not light from the door.

Indeed if we are to accept that this photo is taken when the door is barricaded, then the highlights on the body and table must be from the direction of the windows, As has been previously said a few posts back and in other threads commenting on MJK3, the idea of natural light for this on an overcast day is highly unlikely.

I think you may have a good case here.

[Pierre]

This is how I see MJK3

Thanks Robert, a very good illustration of your thinking!

I have been thinking about this and I believe there is a problem - the lack of the 90 degree corner. If the interpretation of the position of the window and door on each side of the corner would be right, the window would (in reality) cut right through the table.

So this should be a more valid interpretation. What do you think?

Regards Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

This is how I see MJK3

[Sam Flynn]

However, now I'm seeing numbers in the photo. Does anyone else see numbers where I've circled in white

Almost certainly photographic artefacts, if not pure imagination ("methinks it is like a weasel"). Besides, we have to bear in mind that the subject-matter was a good half-day old by the time the picture was taken; the flesh would have flopped, shrunk and distorted significantly since Kelly's murder. Any vague resemblance to perceived shapes probably owes more to gravity and physiology than to any "message" the killer intended to convey.

[Elamarna]

Dear Packers Stem,

i am not sure why you think the lighting is important, but lets look at the possible sources of light:

Natural light.
while it is unlikely that there was sufficient natural light(given the time of day and the known weather conditions)to take these photographs, due to the fact that these both photos are for photographic purposes "still life" an extremely long exposure cannot be ruled out and could account for the blurring /bunch of bananas in MJK3.
The light does appear to be coming from the general direction of the larger window. however in MJK1 the strongest source appears to be coming from the, front left of the the body, this would not be compatible with light from the window, which should be almost directly from the front

In MJK3 the highlights appear to be coming from the same approximate area as in MJK1.
There does however appear to be other highlights on the table which do not correspond to this.
This problem with natural light has been discussed several times before by various posters including Simon Wood.

Therefore what forms of artificial lighting were available in 1888:

Oxy-hydrogen light had been introduced in 1839, it gave poor results and was little used by the time of the murders.

Battery operated lighting was used to photograph the sewers in Paris, France by Nadar, but was not commonly used.
Electric lighting was mainly confined to studios but was in fact being used in the 1880's. the power often being provided by gas driven dynamos, exposure of 2-3 seconds were possible.

These methods were however unreliable at the time.

Magnesium was the big move forward in flash photography in the second half of the 19th century. The light was produced by burning a wire or strip of magnesium. whilst this was expensive it was portable, exposures did vary considerably and commonly produced grey smoke. none is obvious in either picture but we should not let this rule out its use.

In 1887 Flash powder was introduced, this was a mixture of magnesium powder and Potassium chlorate, it allowed near instant photographs with higher shutter speeds than had been possible before.

It is quite likely that this may have been used for the Millers Court photos .

[MysterySinger]

I can see the thing that looks like it might be a knob. Can't really make out the windows but they could be there. However, now I'm seeing numbers in the photo. Does anyone else see numbers where I've circled in white and what could be the significance of the 2 quite large circular shapes in the boxed area?

[packers stem]

Rather than thinking about the positioning of the furniture, wouldn't it make more sense to question the artificial light first

[Elamarna]

Robert

i would say that i still think MJK3 could have been altered during processing.
however it does tend to correspond to the image in MJK1 no matter what someone else says.

If the scene was altered at all between the photos it would appear to be minimal and probably for the purpose of taking the later picture/pictures.

One other small, if you re read the statement of Dr Phillips, it does say the door hit the table, this is probably due too the killer having to move it slightly to allow himself to complete the mutilations. The statement goes on to say that the table was on the left hand side of the bed, and the bed was against the partition. This would back up your view of the situation.

Therefore it would appear the data used by the OP has been selectively quoted to exclude that which does not meet their theory.
If you are going to accept part of the statement, I see no reason not to accept all of it.

[Robert St Devil]

I'd rather not comment on MJK3. It's not an especially illuminating photograph and I can't see any importance in the precise locations of the camera and the items of furniture. Suffice to say that in my view Pierre has totally misunderstood it. But the only point I want to make about it in this thread is that it doesn't show anything barricading anything else.

David Orsam & Elamarna.

[El] thanks for the feedback. Once you see it, its a little difficult to "un-see" it. I also looked at the courtyard photo. Im sure you noticed how close the broken pane window is to the corner. I think you are right about the dimensions.

[DO] Understood, and I agree. I dont believe the door was barricaded as suggested, or that the furniture had been moved. Still. The photo does offer corroboration with the testimonies.
1. If that door opens, its going to strike that table.
2. Tom Bowyer would have had to push aside that curtain to see inside.
3. Tom Bowyer would have had to look over that table to see Mary Kelly after seeing those lumps on the table.
4. You can also determine how easy it would have been to reach the doorknob thru that window.
5. It offers a bit of legitimacy to Mjk3, and suggests the crime scene wasnt manipulated or altered.

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre.

[Alt #3] you have to extend the line leading from DOOR. The door knob is in the upper left corner. It has a curved reflection of light on it. Currently you just have it pointed at the corner of the wall. Moving from right to left, you can see where the 'white' wall turns into the dark door.

Hi Robert,

Great, I see how you are thinking. I´ll think about this and get back.

Regards Pierre

[GUT]

I have one thing to say about Pierre's little photo full of arrows...


Huh????

[David Orsam]

I'd rather not comment on MJK3. It's not an especially illuminating photograph and I can't see any importance in the precise locations of the camera and the items of furniture. Suffice to say that in my view Pierre has totally misunderstood it. But the only point I want to make about it in this thread is that it doesn't show anything barricading anything else.

[Elamarna]

Robert , in reply to you and not the OP

the one option our friend does not look at is:

1. the knob is the door,
2.the area next to it, is the wall leading to the corner of the room.
3. the window could be the area to the right of the strip of light.

looking at the photograph of the outside view on 13 Millers Court, this would seem to fit the dimensions.
This would explain the strip of light, which i have previously noted does not extend under the table, in the gap between body and said table, as would be expected.
However without the original plate, it is impossible to tell if the strip is real or an artefact produced during processing
hope that helps you.