Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bowyer´s inquest testimony

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    There's an old thread with excellent plans/drawings showing potential camera angles (etc) here:

    http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2480
    An interesting thread Sam, in which Simon Wood was comprehensively schooled by someone who obviously knew what he was talking about.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      There's an old thread with excellent plans/drawings showing potential camera angles (etc) here:

      http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2480
      Thanks Sam.

      The hypothesis in that one is that we see curtains on MJK. But why does the "curtains" have squares on them?

      Regards Pierre

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
        I assume those questions are addressed to Pierre, not me, Mr St Devil.
        In this instance, Mr Orsam, it is your opinion that i am interested in.
        Last edited by Robert St Devil; 12-05-2015, 07:10 PM.
        there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
          In this instance, Mr Orsam, it is your opinion that i am interested in.
          May I ask why?

          The only comment I have made on MJK3 is that it does not show the table and bed barricading the door.

          Are you saying that you think MJK3 does show the table and bed barricading the door? If so, how are your three questions relevant to that point? If not, why are you interested in my opinion?

          Comment


          • #20
            Perhaps if the photographer obtained several negatives the question would be how come we only know of one decent photo plus one that may have been manipulated in some way. MJK3 has a number 4 in the bottom right corner, for example, which may or may not signify anything.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              May I ask why?

              The only comment I have made on MJK3 is that it does not show the table and bed barricading the door.

              Are you saying that you think MJK3 does show the table and bed barricading the door? If so, how are your three questions relevant to that point? If not, why are you interested in my opinion?

              David Orsan & MysterySinger.
              To answer your question, i have become convinced about the MJK3 photo. Pierre only sees the door. Elamarna may have seen the curtain. So, after our conversation on the Collier thread, i would consider your opinion to be the most unbiased in deciding if I am seeing what I tend to see in MJK3 now.

              [MJK1 FRAMEWORK] forget about hidden doors and tables barricading doors. Lets say that the room is how you would expect it to be if you were taking the MJK1 photo. The wall on the opposite side of the bed is the partitioned wall. To your right is her locked door. To your left is the fireplace or oil stove. And directly behind you are the two windows.

              [MJK3 ANGLE] in the mjk1 photo, mary kelly has bundle of covers by her right calf. Lets say that you have taken mjk1 and have moved to the opposite sideof the bed. There is a space between the bed and the wall, and you position your camera next to the bed and at a height slightly higher than that bundle of covers. You angle your camera towards the corner between the door and the broken paned window; so now, in your frame, you would be looking across Mary Kellys pelvis, the bedside table AND also see the door and window. I am saying that this how MJK3 was taken.
              1. Do you see the knob in the upper left corner? It looks like a dark circle. Thats the door that McCarthy just busted open.
              2. That white strip hanging from the top of the photo. Can you see that being the light shining behind the edge of the curtain? The ones that Bowyer pushes aside. In other words, what Pierre is calling the door, im saying its the window.
              3. There is some kind of bundle at the bottom of the photo, below her leg. That would be the bundle of covers that i mentioned in mjk1.

              *I have bern trying to ascertain wherethe corner of the wall is, but the shading is not that great, so its location is speculative. But the brick measurements were posted on the forum, so ive been 'swagging' it.

              [PICTURE #4] MysterySinger posted that mjk3 has a '4' on it. The NY Herald wrote that the photographer took several photos. To me... Mjk3 looks likeit belongs in a series of photos. Im trying to imagine a photographer choosing the mjk3 angle as his next&only option after mjk1. I would think he would have worked his way around her bed, beginning with her face. Then, moved down to the sideof the bed by ber left leg. The Herald states the he also took photos from the Court.
              Last edited by Robert St Devil; 12-06-2015, 09:04 AM.
              there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                Regardless, David, im still going to ask:

                1. Do you see the doorknob in the upper left corner of MJK3?
                2. Can you see the thin white strip in MJK3 being a ray of light shining between the edge of the broken pane window and the curtain?
                3. Do you see the bundle of covers at the bottom of the picture of MJK3?

                My thoughts...
                That door opened inward, and struck that table. Bowyer pushed aside that curtain, and saw that table between ("in front of") him and the bed. He saw those lumps of flesh on that table. That table sits up a little higher than the bed, so he had to look over it to see Kelly.
                Hi,

                Interesting. But why do you think we see a window?

                If you look at this picture, what do you think is the best interpretation of what we see, and why?

                I think alternative 1 is OK. Then the knob to the left must be something on the wall to hang things on or perhaps a wardrobe. But we can´t know what it is.

                As for alternative 2, there weren´t two doors leading to the court so I don´t think alternative 2 is possible.

                Alt 3: The window (small one) wasn´t right beside the door. There was a corner between them. So this alternative isn´t possible either.

                Alt 4: The "knob" is one thing that makes me want to favour this alternative, although I have chosen to think that the door is to the right, which I did only because of James Tully´s drawing.

                So it must be alternative 1 or 4. But which one?

                And for both alternatives, the windows should be to the right in the photograph.

                Regards Pierre
                Attached Files
                Last edited by Pierre; 12-06-2015, 09:28 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  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.
                  there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I have one thing to say about Pierre's little photo full of arrows...


                        Huh????
                        G U T

                        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                            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.
                            there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Rather than thinking about the positioning of the furniture, wouldn't it make more sense to question the artificial light first
                                You can lead a horse to water.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X