Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[Pierre]

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

Hi,

No, you are making the wrong interpretation.

The strip of light is on the correct side if you use James Tully´s plan, as are the hinges. The door could then be opened from the window. That is why I ask why they didn´t open it. They were the police. They should have known how to open a door. And in this case it should have been really easy. If the door was not barricaded, that is.

I have marked the strip of light with orange, now you may see it.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

in answer to your questions

yes you would, that is how photographs are produced, by the means of transmission and the recording of light, in a dark area, a light source will always show up. Modern software ensures that we can see almost anything no matter how faint the image may be.

You misunderstand, MJK1 on its own it is interesting but only gives a suggestion However the image it is supported by the statements of Bowyer and Phillips, and it in return supports their statements. this as you are aware is out evidence works, one source of data supports another.

[FrankO]

They should have known how to open a door. And in this case it should have been really easy. If the door was not barricaded, that is.

Pierre, you claim that the door could not be opened through the window if it was barricaded the way you suggest. Do you mean by this that the door could not be unlocked through the window?

[Elamarna]

Robert,

I will read that thread again, it looks quite technical which is good.

Have looked at the picture, and studied it again in photo software, yes there is something, but it is impossible to tell what it is.
However if Pierre is correct in his positioning, theN there is a possible object between the table and the door. this is not mentioned by any of the eye witnesses.
Think this supports the view that Pierre is incorrect in his appraisal of the photo

Hard to tell what those marks are:
lots going on in that area,
are we really looking at a human leg?
they could be tattoos, or how about "Ringworm" that looks just like that. Alternatively could be artefacts caused by processing of plate or marks on object if not leg.
Again could the whole of that area not have been painted in at the studio, it does look very strange.

[Elamarna]

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

My Dear Pierre,

you have obviously read this thread, yet you appear to simply ignore it,
without going into too much detail: why do you disagree?
Do you have evidence to support your rejection or is it just your view that the bed is in front of the door and therefore this idea cannot be correct?

I am not trying to attack you, I really would like you to explain why you reject scientific evidence? what are the rest of us missing?

[Pierre]

Pierre, you claim that the door could not be opened through the window if it was barricaded the way you suggest. Do you mean by this that the door could not be unlocked through the window?

Hi Frank,

Abberline never described the entrance door to Miller´s Court himself when he testified but he referred to Joe Barnett:

"An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy."

http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...est_kelly.html

Abberline was a police officer and would have understood how to open the door if there was any possibility to open it. And according to the description of Barnett, it would have been very easy. So why did Abberline not open the door to enter the room? What did he do for more than two hours outside of this room? That is my point.

There is another entrance to the room from 26 Dorset Street. The doorway is clearly seen at Goad´s fire insurance plans. This doorway is an original part of the ground floor in 26 Dorset Street. This ground floor is originally a freehold shop.

McCarthy knew this. Naturally he knew about the doorway between the rooms. So there is a possibility that Abberline used this doorway and entered the room with the photographer from that side. In that case, we can see this on MJK3, since the table and bed are up against the entrance door and not the "partition", i.e. the door in the doorway leading from 26 Door(!)set Street.

Regards Pierre

[Joshua Rogan]

The theory that the strip of light is coming through the hinge side of the door only really works if the door is open somewhat. External door frames (and most internal ones) have a strip of raised wood against which the door closes, and which prevents things like wind, rain and light getting straight through. With the door firmly closed and the camera view perpendicular to the door as in Pierre's post #106, there would be no gap for any light to shine through.

[Joshua Rogan]

But Pierre, you've been told several times WHY the police didn't enter the room for 2 hours - they were awaiting the arrival of the bloodhounds. Whether Abberline spent those two hours a) scratching his head and wondering how the hell he was going to open the door when the dogs finally arrived, or b) controlling the crowds, searching the court and interviewing witnesses, is anybody's guess. But I'd go for b).

[Robert]

So Pierre, McCarthy knew that there was a way into the room via the partition. Yet he chose to prise open the doorway from the court with a pickaxe.

Did McCarthy visit any other acts of wanton vandalism on his own property while he was about it? Perhaps the kettle spout never melted off, but fell off as a result of McCarthy's jumping up and down on it?

[Robert St Devil]

Elamarna. As for technicality: the door, yes. The table, yes. The bed, i dunno. When i used the same scale for the bed as the door, the bed looked too small for the body. When i doubled it, it looked too long. I am sure there is some algorithm for determining how much the scale would shift if that bed is 2 ft. Away from Pierre's door.

[Robert St Devil]

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

Hi pierre. The door will draw itself out depending on what scale you use -and- your approximation for the dimensions of the door. So i dont need to look at that thread. Youve put the table in front of the door so the far side of the table will be on the same scale as the door.

In your drawing, is it intentional that you have the table and the bed being only slightly wider than her broken pane window? I would think that together, they would be about 6 to 7 ft wide (which would put you at the midpoint of the room).

Do you think thats her hip or her leg in the photo?

[FrankO]

Hi Pierre,

I know all that you wrote above. I read it before, but that wasn't what I was asking for. Could you please answer my question before we, perhaps, go into anything else?

Thanks

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Joshua Rogan. I agree. Two hours pass quickly when theres a lot of activity going on. It really only amounts to half of the first part of your workday.

[Joshua Rogan]

The coroner asked Prater if she had heard "beds or tables" being pulled around.

This might lend some validity to your theory, had Mrs Prater replied "yes". But I believe her answer was "none whatever".

[Elamarna]

something to make us think

Hi all,

Today I got a copy of "uncovering Jack the Rippers London" by Richard Jones. i finally went on a tour last week run by the ever wonderful Phil Hhutchinson, so decided to get the book for the tour.

Nowi am sure cannot be the first to notice what I am about to say but please bare with me. ( did a search but was unable to find any mention of it on the board.)

On page 121 there is a copy of MJK3, it is substantial different from the copies on this site and in other books I have seen.

For clarification lets us call the image on this site (A) and the image in The book (B).

In A we have a light strip and to the right of it a line which has been suggested as the leg of a chair, this is the image Pierre has based his argument on.

However in B there is NO LIGHT STRIP and that leg of a chair appears to have a extension added to it and can be seen as a Table, there was a table on the wall by the windows I believe.

i have not reproduced the image because the book is copyrighted. but it is a easily available book so is easy to check


For this to happen we have only two explanations surely:

1) At some point in the past the source images used for at least one of these two reprints has been manipulated, that is changed.

2) The two images are from two different exposures, these would be MJK3 and a new MJK4.

Can honestly see no other explanation!

As an aside, Mr Evans has said on the boards he has seen at least one Millers Court photo which was not in the public domain, so the possibility exists.

That could be a whole new thread!

this is not my purpose here

I am using this to show that without the[ original plates it is impossible to be sure of what we see.

If the image B was the image on this board and not image A, Pierre's theory would I am sure not exist.

any comments and corrections happily accepted

Elamarna