Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[David Orsam]

Or:

"Jack the Barricader: The First Furniture Based Solution to the Whitechapel Murders Mystery"

(Pierre, you can have that one for free)

[Robert]

"Jack the Ripper, First Feng Shui Murderer." Available in all good book shops.

[David Orsam]

It's perfectly obvious what has happened with Pierre.

He has fallen into the basic schoolboy error of misunderstanding the events of 9 November.

He has read of the long two hour wait outside Kelly's room. He has read of the missing key. He has read of the forcing of the door with an axe. Yet, he has also read of the easy trick of opening the door through the window.

In his ruthlessly scientific mind, it doesn't compute. Missing key, axe, two hour wait, easy entry. Something is wrong.

Then a flash of inspiration. Of course! The door was barricaded!!!!

He's found what everyone has missed these past 125 years. It makes perfect sense that the killer would barricade the door to prevent someone coming in. And he's even discovered in the coroner's question to Prater a suggestion that the door and table was moved around.

Pierre is a genius. He's almost solved this mystery. He just needs to work out how the killer escaped. Through the window? No, he can do much better than this. Minutely inspecting the building plans and the photographs he has discovered another door!! ANOTHER DOOR!!!

Yes, everything now makes sense. The killer came in and out through this door in the wall. He barricaded the front door. That explains the "problems" he believed the police had in getting into the room.

Looking at MJK3 he sees the light, literally. A strip of light which in his own mind can only mean one thing. It is the secret photograph of how the room looked when the police came in through the door in the wall!!!!

So in his own mind he has solved it all. There is nothing that will shake him from his conviction that he, and he alone, has understood the crime scene. It is the New Discourse. Everyone else is so blindly wedded to the traditional explanations that they can't see it.

Unfortunately, as we know, Pierre, with his propensity to leap to conclusions on the basis of misunderstood evidence, has failed to understand that the delay in entering the room was caused by the wait for the bloodhounds. He has totally failed to take into account Dr Phillips' evidence about the layout of the room when he entered it.

Despite this, he cannot abandon the theory. Such abandonment is not in Pierre's nature. He will press on. He will try and distort the evidence to fit his theory. This will never work but he will never give up!

[Elamarna]

I notice no response to my post i think its 204 about scientific research.
it annoys me that he claims to be a researcher using a scientific approach. i was employed in scientific research for 35 years and would not have last a week with his attitude.

[David Orsam]

he won't listen. we have all answers his questions time and time again, but he keeps asking them, I assume he thinks we are going to change our minds without any new evidence!

That is, indeed, one of the most extraordinary things. How many times is he going to ask the exact same questions?

I wouldn't mind if there was some difficulty answering them and we were all squirming. In that case, fine, repeat them. But for him to constantly repeat them without any acknowledgement at all that they have been fully answered is worrying.

[Elamarna]

agreed it may support MJK3, but only if the bed is in roughly same position in both photos and not used as a barricade.

[David Orsam]

but for him to suggest his plan shows the bed near the wall is the largest stretch of imagination I have seen on here in a very long time .

Yes, and the word isn't even "near" the wall. Dr Phillips used the phrase "close against" the wooden partition. As you say, this is not represented in Pierre's diagram, or anything like it.

[Elamarna]

David

he won't listen. we have all answers his questions time and time again, but he keeps asking them, I assume he thinks we are going to change our minds without any new evidence!

I made the mistake of arguing over the word removed which didn’t help, but for him to suggest his plan shows the bed near the wall is the largest stretch of imagination I have seen on here in a very long time .

[David Orsam]

Yes. On MJK3 the table IS on the left hand side of the bed, and the bed IS against the partition wall. It is only an issue of WHICH SIDE of the bed is against the partition. Phillips description goes for both.

So this is a matter of interpretation. And history depends on it. Your interpretation depends on the picture you have in your mind: that is the picture from the MJK1 photo.

My interpretation depends on a big questionmark: Which photo is corresponding to Phillips descriptions?
BOTH actually do.

It is thoroughly amusing that 200 posts into this thread, Pierre has had a revelation and has now decided that Dr Phillips' evidence supports his theory, so that the doctor wasn't lying after all!!!

This is no doubt because he realises that his claim that the divisional surgeon was lying at the inquest is unsustainable.

Ironically, he may be right that MJK1 and MJK3 both correspond to Dr Phillips' descriptions because there is a very decent chance that both MJK1 and MJK3 represent the exact same scene from different angles.

What Dr Phillips' evidence does not do, however, is support Pierre's theory that the door of Kelly's room was barricaded. This is very clear because he said that "on the door being opened it knocked against a table" with the table being found close to the left hand side of the bed and the bed itself "close up against the wooden partition". If there was a barricade then Dr Phillips was lying about it. But because Dr Phillips would not have lied at the inquest we know that the door was not barricaded.

Pierre's theory fails when tested against the evidence.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

"Yes. On MJK3 the table IS on the left hand side of the bed, and the bed IS against the partition wall. It is only an issue of WHICH SIDE of the bed is against the partition. Phillips description goes for both.

So this is a matter of interpretation. And history depends on it. Your interpretation depends on the picture you have in your mind: that is the picture from the MJK1 photo.

My interpretation depends on a big questionmark: Which photo is corresponding to Phillips descriptions?
BOTH actually do."

Actually they do not.
he says it is close against the wall which it is not in your plan, there is a large gap.

"He did not say the body had been "removed", he said that the death cut had taken place with the body on the left hand side of the bed and then moved, not removed across to the centre/right hand side.

You are WRONG Steve: Read the text. Phillips does say it had been removed:

"I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death".

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

he never said the bed was moved, , he said the body was repositioned on the bed after death.

I have never said that Phillips said the bed was removed: The coroner asked Prater this question".

My apologies he did indeed say removed, but we all agree that the body was moved on the bed, obviously a misuse of the word by Phillips in my opinion, to remove means to take away but that is semantics.

Exactly he never said the bed was moved , so why do you say the bed was removed?
There is no evidence of the bed being moved

Quoting the coroners question is not evidence of the bed being moved, you have no idea why he asked the question?
Common sense would suggest that the table appeared to be moved so he asked; But even then we do not know for sure.


"Comment: I do not mean to be rude but removed means removed. And he says removed. But he is talking about the body and not the bed. The coroner talks about the bed."

see above


"If you will not let me quote MJK3, then you may not quote MJK1. So I can quote the coroner:

[Coroner] Did you hear beds or tables being pulled about? (ibid.)"

Your idea that the bed was barricading the door comes at least in part from your interpretation of MJK3, given that there is NO independent evidence to back this it is a circular argument.


""No. He didn´t need to tell lies. [u]His descriptions correspond to both MJK3 and MJK1. That is the point with interpreting sources: You must analyze the sources objectively. If you have a bias, like if you are convinced that one photograph gives the right picture of the room, you are bound to interpret everything from that view. And then you may not understand what Phillips said.
.
Of course he did and of course it was. The partition wall is right on top of the bedstead in MJK3! And it runs alongside the bedstead in MJK1! BUT: Phillips did NOT say WHICH SIDE of the beadstead was close against the partition.

One of the reasons we have this problem of interpretation is that the width of the room was very limited!"

In your plan the bed is not close to the wall, an estimate would be from 2ft to 3ft. that is as much as a quarter of the width of the room,

I have looked at it do not see how you would say that was close to the wall, as i said before you are bending the evidence to fit your theory.



"And I have some questions for you and I am very interested in hearing your answers:

If the door was "quite easy" to open, and if we can assume that it was not locked (which is what Abberline seems to say in the inquest):
1. WHY did they have to wait for more than two hours outside?"

how many times do you need to be told the same thing: because Abberline said Beck informed him the dogs were coming and Dr Phillips advised it would be best to wait for the dogs
could you quote the testimony where Abberline says the door was not locked,

"2. Why should they have to use a pick axe to open the door?"

that’s a good question, the obvious answer is to break the lock.

if it is used to demolish the door because it is barricaded, doesn’t your door in MJK3 look remarkably intact.


"3. And, the perhaps most important question if you are thinking from the perspective of the killer, since he knew what he was going to do to the body of Kelly during at least more than one and a half hour:

Why should the killer NOT barricade the door before starting to perform all the mutilations on Mary Jane Kelly?"


1) where do you get the time span of plus one and a half hours from.

2) that is not evidence that he did. that is your surmising such.

The accepted position is that the door was not barricaded, therefore you have to provide evidence that it was. saying why should he not IS NOT EVIDENCE


We answer your questions ever time, the answers are not going to change unless you supply evidence to change our minds.

But of course you are right, you know better than anyone else and we should respect you and you Discourse!

[David Orsam]

The partition wall is right on top of the bedstead in MJK3! And it runs alongside the bedstead in MJK1! BUT: Phillips did NOT say WHICH SIDE of the beadstead was close against the partition.

Yes he did. And very clearly.

He said the "left hand side of the bedstead" was close to the table and "the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition". So, for anyone who speaks and understands the English language, the right hand side of the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition.

By way of confirmation, he made the point that Kelly was murdered while she was lying "at the right hand side of the bedstead" because of the amount of blood at the top corner of the bed "nearest the partition".

Again, for anyone who understands English, this means that the right hand side of the bed was nearest the partition and close up against it.

[David Orsam]

You are WRONG Steve: Read the text. Phillips does say it had been removed:
"I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death".

I see that Pierre continues to falsely represent the evidence in this case. Either that or he can't understand English.

Normally I would quote from the official inquest records but, even if we use the Daily Telegraph, as Pierre does, the full quote of the coroner, which Pierre has chopped in half (because it does not support what he is saying) is as follows:

"Deceased had only an under-linen garment upon her, and by subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned".

In the previous sentence, the coroner had said:

"The mutilated remains of a woman were lying two-thirds over, towards the edge of the bedstead, nearest the door."

He then refers to the amount of blood at the corner of the bedstead nearest the partition and that death "was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead".

So it is perfectly clear what he was saying. Her throat had been cut while she was lying on the right side of the bed but her body had then been moved by her murderer to the left side of the bed.

But Pierre actually knows this because he said:

"Phillips also said the body had been removed after death. I agree and I also think the bed was removed. So Phillips did not need to lie."

What he is essentially saying is that Dr Phillips said the body had been moved after death. That doesn't get him anywhere. He then adds his own opinion that the bed was also moved. He means moved to barricade the door. But Dr Phillips did not say this at all. He never mentioned the bed being moved. That is Pierre's own belief and is not in the evidence.

Thus, Pierre's conclusion "So Phillips did not need to lie" is utterly meaningless.

Phillips said that when he entered the room "the bedstead was close up against the wooden partition". On Pierre's theory, Dr Phillips was lying. Why did he lie? Pierre has failed to answer.

[David Orsam]

MR ORSAN
The aspect that i cant resolve is the mattress in mjk3. Y'see, in mjk3, her body (ie. her hip/leg) seems to be directly beside the table. However, according to mjk1, her body looks to be 'a foot or so' away from the edge of the table. Its trying to compensate for this spatial(?) illusion that makes mjk3 difficult to understand. Had the photog captured the edge of the matress in the photo, we'd be having an entirely different conversation.

If that was all you were saying Mr St Devil I wouldn't have bothered replying but amongst your musings was speculation that the police encountered "a dead woman locked inside of a barricaded room." And that "McCarty (sic) uses an axe to break open the door except it's the door in the partitioned wall." There was further speculation that "the police decide to board up all the windows in case the killer decides to return to the site." And you referred to the coroner's question to Pater about the furniture being moved as supporting all this.

All very Pierre-like but I'm glad to hear you say that Elamarna has helped you discard such thoughts.

[Pierre]

Pierre

PLEASE listen

Comment: I am listening attentively.

what does looking at a plan do?, yes the throat was cut by the wall, i note you accept that part of the testimony.

Phillips said: the table was on the left hand side of the bed, and the bed was against the partition wall.

That is nothing like your drawing.


Yes. On MJK3 the table IS on the left hand side of the bed, and the bed IS against the partition wall. It is only an issue of WHICH SIDE of the bed is against the partition. Phillips description goes for both.

So this is a matter of interpretation. And history depends on it. Your interpretation depends on the picture you have in your mind: that is the picture from the MJK1 photo.

My interpretation depends on a big questionmark: Which photo is corresponding to Phillips descriptions?
BOTH actually do.

He did not say the body had been "removed", he said that the death cut had taken place with the body on the left hand side of the bed and then moved, not removed across to the centre/right hand side.

You are WRONG Steve: Read the text. Phillips does say it had been removed:

"I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death".

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

he never said the bed was moved, , he said the body was repositioned on the bed after death.

I have never said that Phillips said the bed was removed: The coroner asked Prater this question.


I do not mean to be rude, but moved and removed are not the same

Comment: I do not mean to be rude but removed means removed. And he says removed. But he is talking about the body and not the bed. The coroner talks about the bed.

I note you say you think the bed was moved, I ask you yet again, what evidence do you have for this? please don't quote MJK3 that is a circular argument, which you cannot prove.

If you will not let me quote MJK3, then you may not quote MJK1. So I can quote the coroner:

[Coroner] Did you hear beds or tables being pulled about? (ibid.)


Phillips gave a sworn statement, why do you continue to dispute it? no let me make this really easy a yes or no answer will do.

No. He didn´t need to tell lies. [U]His descriptions correspond to both MJK3 and MJK1. That is the point with interpreting sources: You must analyze the sources objectively. If you have a bias, like if you are convinced that one photograph gives the right picture of the room, you are bound to interpret everything from that view. And then you may not understand what Phillips said.


Phillips said when the door was open the bed was close against the partition wall!!!

Of course he did and of course it was. The partition wall is right on top of the bedstead in MJK3! And it runs alongside the bedstead in MJK1! BUT: Phillips did NOT say WHICH SIDE of the beadstead was close against the partition.

One of the reasons we have this problem of interpretation is that the width of the room was very limited!

DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT HE DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH? (I DON'T MEAN A FEELING YOU HAVE)


Please read above.

And I have some questions for you and I am very interested in hearing your answers:

If the door was "quite easy" to open, and if we can assume that it was not locked (which is what Abberline seems to say in the inquest):
1. WHY did they have to wait for more than two hours outside?

2. Why should they have to use a pick axe to open the door?

3. And, the perhaps most important question if you are thinking from the perspective of the killer, since he knew what he was going to do to the body of Kelly during at least more than one and a half hour:

Why should the killer NOT barricade the door before starting to perform all the mutilations on Mary Jane Kelly?


Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Dear Pierre

With all due respect, if you think that your plan is backed by Phillips statement you really have a very poor understanding of English:

"close to the partition wall" means that . that is within an inch or two of the wall, .

You are now trying to manipulate evidence to support you ideas.

That is not how scientific researchers work, if the hypothesis does not fit the evidence then the hypothesise is wrong that is scientific research.