Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[David Orsam]

So what do you really think about the hypothesis about the light and shadow?

Heh! What does Elamarna really think? I believe the answer, Pierre, is that your hypothesis is rejected.

[David Orsam]

Thank you David,

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

steve aka Elamarna

Just to say Steve, for what it's worth, that, while I know you might regard it as a frustrating waste of time, I think you should carry on replying to Pierre, rather than ignoring him, because your posts are read (by me, at least, and others I'm sure) and are very effective.

[Pierre]

David likes me.

So much that he must answer anything I write. Carry on, David! Time is money!

[David Orsam]

So much that he must answer anything I write.

I only answer the nonsensical posts which require correction, Pierre.

Oh yeah, so you are correct, I do answer everything you write.

[Elamarna]

Nothing to do with my feelings.

I have been a profession scientist for 30 + yhttp://forum.casebook.org/images/editor/attach.gifears I only deal in evidence.
If I am not sure I will say so. That is why the word probably is used often, because for much of this subject we have no certainties.

Yesterday, I challenged Michael, on his statement that the door was hinged on the right,.
The point made was that it was his opinion which he honestly believed in; but that it was only an opinion and he should not be presenting it as fact, even if it could later be proved to be so. The post was polite, as was the recent long post to you.
Michael accepted they comments and said so.

You either cannot see other peoples view point or won't that is your right.
However if you insist on maintaining a position on a subject, others will challenge you to support your opinion with hard facts.

A few weeks back I made a comment about the use of the word apartment, I was corrected on this by other posters, shown the evidence to back their viewpoint . and happily accepted I was wrong and said so on the message board.

Ok light and shadow: there is a light source from the right.

This light produces highlights over the whole of the photo.

I am sorry but your explanation of "shadowy" parts is pure nonsense:
It suggest your knowledge of photograph is less than complete. I am prepared to accept that this may be incorrect, and if so I apologise unreservedly.

If an area is in shadow, it is darker, therefore any light source in that area shows up more strongly than in bright light.
The light strip in your version is from the door, and would be under the table which is against the door, it would stand out like a beacon.
Check it your self, use a chair, put it close to a window, under the chair is dark right?
place a a light source under the chair, say the leds on a cell/mobile phone
do you not see the led?


On a more scientific level open the image in photo software, it doesn't need to be photoshop.

Correct the exposure to give a longer exposure (lighten the image), this brings out dark objects which have been under exposed, the "knob" is very clear.

Now decrease the exposure, (darken the image) items which have been over exposed, that is very bright ,are now less so.

At no stage is there any light under the table, now I accept the space is limited, and that there could be a drape, but you should expect to see something of the strip if it was there

This is not photo manipulation, it is basic exposure control.

I have no set views on the subject, and am happy to look at any new ideas or theories. However i will challenge anything where there is a lack of obvious evidence.
Pierre you support your position by asking about:

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.


You have your own opinions and views on these that is obvious; but the same applies as did with Michael last night, there is no evidence in any of those points, it is your view and interpretation of them with it appears nothing to support your view other than the belief that the view given is correct.


why did the coronor say this, why was the door not opened, could the killer have used another door, the photogr
the problem is that y

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Pierre,
I am sorry but your sketch doesn't match MJK3 at all: the strip of light should be behind the table, not next to the table. Remember the door opens on the window side and is hinged on the far side? Your floor plan doesn't match this. Also one can see on MJK3 that the strip of light would be too far from anywhere to be able to reach with an outstretched arm to unlatch it. My take is: the door on MJK3 is ajar, the bed was moved a little bit to an angle from the wall, so the camera could be placed. There is an angle of something like 60 degrees between the table and the door behind it. The corner of the room would then actually be hidden behind the door.
Regards,
IchabodCrane

[Elamarna]

IchabodCrane

your point about the corner being hidden by an open door is very valid.

This Alternative has been offer to Pierre already, it appears he cannot see it.
it could be a case of "not seeing the wood for the trees"

regards

.

[GUT]

Just to say Steve, for what it's worth, that, while I know you might regard it as a frustrating waste of time, I think you should carry on replying to Pierre, rather than ignoring him, because your posts are read (by me, at least, and others I'm sure) and are very effective.

As are yours David.

[Abby Normal]

As are yours David.

Ditto

[Elamarna]

Just to say Steve, for what it's worth, that, while I know you might regard it as a frustrating waste of time, I think you should carry on replying to Pierre, rather than ignoring him, because your posts are read (by me, at least, and others I'm sure) and are very effective.

David,

thank you for the encouragement. last week i said no more responding to Pierre, but changed my mind.
he needs to supply evidence for his views, or not give them.

you by the way are doing a great job on challenging him, different to my approach but i do admire it

steve

[GUT]

David,

thank you for the encouragement. last week i said no more responding to Pierre, but changed my mind.
he needs to supply evidence for his views, or not give them.

you by the way are doing a great job on challenging him, different to my approach but i do admire it

steve

G'day Steve

The only problem is, for all the great posts you are both making .pierre doesn't even attempt to engage, he still provides nothing but BS about data and "knowing" but can't say, and material that he has disappearing,

He is full of .....

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Elamarna & Pierre.
I worked up an approximate scale for the door hypothesis. I based the scale on an approximation for the crack of light. I used 6 inches. When I used 1 foot, Mary Kelly would have had to be a hobbit to exit. Anything less than 6 inches drew out a door that dwarfed Mary Kelly.

[DOOR] I made the door 6x3’. I made the approximation that the table height was 3 ft. That meant, if the crack of light was above the table, it was higher than 3 ft off the floor. I used the bottom of the crack of light as the midpoint of the door (3 ft. off the ground).

[CORNER] The corner is 9 to 12” away.

[TABLE] Because the table is pressed up against the door in Pierre’s hypothesis, I used the same 6” scale to draw out the table (roughly making it 3 ft. in length, or the width of the door).

[LENGTH OF THE BED] The red line at the bottom of the painting is 6.5’ based on the 6” scale. However… we know that scales slide based on distance. I estimated 3” based on her hip bone. The orange line in the middle of the drawing is 6.5’ based on this 3” scale. I centered the “bed” on her pelvis, although she was probably higher up. I used a vertical line because I didn’t know how to approximate a slant for the bed that wouldn’t conflict with the slant of the table.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Elamarna.

Take a look at the MJK photos in this link : http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2480

1. In mjk3, do you see something that looks like the side of a chair or a broom handle in front of the curtain? It looks slightly lighter than the curtain around it.

2. Does Mary Jane Kelly have tattoos on her right shin? In mjk3, focus in on her leg at the bottom of the photo. You should see a black band. Directly to the left of that band, do you see something that looks like a "happy face"? Its a circle with two eyes and a squiggly smile. It looks like it has a scarf tied around its next as you can see a circle with 3 'legs' in front of the "happy face". Looking around that area at different zoom angles, you start to make out shape, but nothing definite. I saw something that looked like an infinity symbol except with3 loops up and to the left of the happy face. To the right of the black band, you see indistinct patterns as well. In mjk1, she looks like she has a butterfly on her ankle.

[Pierre]

If an area is in shadow, it is darker, therefore any light source in that area shows up more strongly than in bright light.
The light strip in your version is from the door, and would be under the table which is against the door, it would stand out like a beacon.
Check it your self, use a chair, put it close to a window, under the chair is dark right?
place a a light source under the chair, say the leds on a cell/mobile phone
do you not see the led?

Sure. But would you always get that effect on a photograph?


I have no set views on the subject, and am happy to look at any new ideas or theories. However i will challenge anything where there is a lack of obvious evidence.
Pierre you support your position by asking about:

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.

You have your own opinions and views on these that is obvious; but the same applies as did with Michael last night, there is no evidence in any of those points, it is your view and interpretation of them with it appears nothing to support your view other than the belief that the view given is correct.

And so do you when you say the MJK1 is evidence in itself.

And I naturally don´t mean to criticize you personally, so please don´t think that, but to point out our methods in this discussion. It is OK to discuss like this, since it has got nothing to do with finding a killer. And I sincerely hope that through the discussion we will get new ideas which can lead us forward. Thanks Elamarna.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Hello Elamarna & Pierre.
I worked up an approximate scale for the door hypothesis. I based the scale on an approximation for the crack of light. I used 6 inches. When I used 1 foot, Mary Kelly would have had to be a hobbit to exit. Anything less than 6 inches drew out a door that dwarfed Mary Kelly.

[DOOR] I made the door 6x3’. I made the approximation that the table height was 3 ft. That meant, if the crack of light was above the table, it was higher than 3 ft off the floor. I used the bottom of the crack of light as the midpoint of the door (3 ft. off the ground).

[CORNER] The corner is 9 to 12” away.

[TABLE] Because the table is pressed up against the door in Pierre’s hypothesis, I used the same 6” scale to draw out the table (roughly making it 3 ft. in length, or the width of the door).

[LENGTH OF THE BED] The red line at the bottom of the painting is 6.5’ based on the 6” scale. However… we know that scales slide based on distance. I estimated 3” based on her hip bone. The orange line in the middle of the drawing is 6.5’ based on this 3” scale. I centered the “bed” on her pelvis, although she was probably higher up. I used a vertical line because I didn’t know how to approximate a slant for the bed that wouldn’t conflict with the slant of the table.

Hi Robert,

You should reconsider the measures. I have used the same scale as in this plan: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2480

Regards Pierre