Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[Elamarna]

David

you are absolutely right i have just spent 20 minutes trying to explain to him and i am sure he will come back not accepting any of it.

He has his theory so everything must fit it. Evidence must be twisted, ignored or invented to serve the theory.

I can see no evidence what so ever that supports his plan.

[David Orsam]

Yes, Elamarna, I think we can hypothesize that he has these imaginary door hinges of his on the brain which is making him unhinged.

We can also hypothesize that he is unable to process evidence or information which is contrary to his own fixed beliefs. I do not want to say this is "a fact" - but it is a very good hypothesis. And, you know what, I would like to ask everyone to try and not refute this hypothesis, because if you do not, perhaps we can start getting closer to the past and not just write unreliable Pierre-like history about this issue.

[Pierre]

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.

But there is no angle there. How can you have a corner without an angle?

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

What is the strip of light then?

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.

But where is the corner? The furniture are in a straight position and parallell with the wall and door whatever the width or depth of the ceil.

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

And if that is the curtain the distance to the entrance door is far to long.

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.

That is easy to answer. And I think that your own experience from photography could come in handy here. The light is coming in through the window. Look at the highlighted parts in the photo. And look at where the shadowy parts meet the light: The light is coming in from above and it makes everything beneath the highlighted areas look dark.

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.

I agree. And it is a far-fetched hypothesis and quite redundant. The most natural explanation is the most probable.

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.

You write the word "probably" 2 times. But what does the photograph show us?

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.

I see no window. There should have been a window if the photo was taken from the position of the other side of the room. I see a strip of light where there is no window. It cannot be a crack in the brick wall. I see hinges where there should only be a window.

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.

Yes. He saw the flesh first, that is, the first time he looked. He did not see the body then. But if the position of the furniture was as i MJK1, he would have seen both at the same time.

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

And supporting evidence for the hypothesis of the barricading of the door is:

The question from the coroner about beds and tables being pulled around.
The leg has fallen down on MJK1.
The working position for the killer is right on MJK3.
The problems with entering the room.
The possibility of another entrance and escape way from 13 Miller´s Court through 26 Dorset Street.
The photograph MJK3 itself.
This photograph having been kept secret for decades.


regards

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

And supporting evidence for the hypothesis of the barricading of the door is:

The question from the coroner about beds and tables being pulled around.
The leg has fallen down on MJK1.
The working position for the killer is right on MJK3.
The problems with entering the room.
The possibility of another entrance and escape way from 13 Miller´s Court through 26 Dorset Street.
The photograph MJK3 itself.
This photograph having been kept secret for decades.

Ah right, so no evidence at all then.

Because:

The coroner was not at room 13 Miller's Court when the police entered so he only knew what was in the evidence before him. That evidence included the fact that the table was in an unnatural position because the door knocked into it, suggesting that the furniture had been moved, hence his question.

There were no problems with entering the room, other than the fact that the door was locked but that was easily remedied.

The "possibility" of another entrance and escape way is not evidence of anything.

To support your argument as to what MJK3 shows by referring to MJK3 itself can only be described as madness.

The photograph was not "kept secret". Assuming it is genuine, it would appear to have been stolen then returned many years later.

I don't understand the significance or meaning of "The leg has fallen down on MJK1" nor your claims about "the working position" of the killer but it clearly does not provide any evidence at all.

The sworn evidence as to the layout of the furniture in the room upon entry was given by the divisional surgeon at the inquest - it corroborates MJK1 - and that's all there is to it.

[Elamarna]

Point proven I am afraid,
you are incapable of accepting any view point but your own.

I have given you the collected views of several persons some of which I do not agree with, but can see they have merit. However you only agree, if it fits your theory.
your replies to my comments are taken a line at a time, asking question which I answer in the next line, that is pointless!

Your supporting evidence is not evidence, it is your opinion and superposition.

For a researcher you show a remarkable lack of understanding of evidence

You refuse to accept the statements given at the inquest as being accurate. and indeed have suggested that the persons perjured themselves.

Using your own criteria, of using data from the period; can you explain why your modern day thoughts and musings are superior to that data.

[Elamarna]

Thank you David,

you beat me to the reply.
closed mind I am afraid

steve aka Elamarna

[Pierre]

Point proven I am afraid,
you are incapable of accepting any view point but your own.

We are not writing to prove things about me. Our discussion is about the killer.

I have given you the collected views of several persons some of which I do not agree with, but can see they have merit. However you only agree, if it fits your theory.
your replies to my comments are taken a line at a time, asking question which I answer in the next line, that is pointless!

Your supporting evidence is not evidence, it is your opinion and superposition.

For a researcher you show a remarkable lack of understanding of evidence

I think you have got some problem with mixing your own feelings into the discussion.

You refuse to accept the statements given at the inquest as being accurate. and indeed have suggested that the persons perjured themselves.

I am not refusing anything. I have asked anyone to try and refute the hypotheses about MJK3. But instead of discussions about MJK3 there are accusations.

Using your own criteria, of using data from the period; can you explain why your modern day thoughts and musings are superior to that data.

I don´t think in terms of "superiority". I try new interpretations and hypotheses. If you prefer the old ones, I have no problem with that.

But I allow myself to think freely about the material we have got.

No one has come up with a good theory about Jack the Ripper. They haven´t even come up with a good explanation.

To say that he was a "lunatic" means nothing, for instance.

Discussing various aspects of other data pieces than the ones giving me the ID of the killer is interesting for me. But it is not interesting when you become accused by others. Emotions should stay out of research.

So what do you really think about the hypothesis about the light and shadow? You have been working with photography. Have you got anything to contribute to this?

Regards Pierre