Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[Chris2307uk]

Darn Copyright! I don't have my copy of the book to hand!

[Pierre]

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.

Hi Joshua,

Yes, and I think it is indeed slightly open since they tried to force the door. So this is what you see in the photograph.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

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).

Yes, I am just like that - I don´t believe everything I read. Crazy me!

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

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?

Well, well. Why should McCarthy break open the door if he just had to put his hand through the broken window and open it? That is: Who shall we believe - Barnett or the person who talked about a pickaxe?

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

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.

Hi Robert,

If you like to experiment I have a suggestion to make. Put a bed diagonally across a corner, take a photo of it and publish it here!

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

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."

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.

Do you seriously not know the answer to this Pierre?

I have already answered it but I'll do it again.

Firstly, Abberline did not learn from Barnett about the "quite easy" method for opening the door until he spoke to Barnett after he had already been in room 13.

Secondly, there was absolutely no reason for Abberline to have known about this method prior to entering room 13. He didn't need to know because an axe was available and this is all that was necessary for entering the room.

Thirdly, the sentence "Abberline was a police officer and would have known how to open the door if there was a possibility to open it" is a non sequitor. Why do policemen have special knowledge about opening doors?

Fourthly, it has already been explained that the evidence is clear that Abberline was waiting two hours for the bloodhounds to arrive and did not want to enter room 13 before they arrived for fear of putting them off the scent. That is why he waited two hours. What was he doing during that two hours? He was waiting for the bloodhounds.

[David Orsam]

Yes, I am just like that - I don´t believe everything I read. Crazy me!

Under normal circumstances that would be a sensible, nay laudable, approach but here we are talking about the sworn testimony of a divisional surgeon at an inquest, as well as the sworn testimony of the inspector of police in charge of the investigation. So yes, it is crazy not to believe that evidence when you read it.

[David Orsam]

[B]Well, well. Why should McCarthy break open the door if he just had to put his hand through the broken window and open it? That is: Who shall we believe - Barnett or the person who talked about a pickaxe?

As someone purportedly taking a scientific approach to this issue, Pierre, you should know that the first thing to establish is: Did McCarthy know he could open the door by putting his hand through the broken window? Unless you are able to provide some evidence to enable this question to be answered in the affirmative, your own question is scientifically invalid.

[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?

Hi Elamarna,

Thanks! That is a very good question: "What are the rest of us missing"?

I will try to answer it:

1. In the MJK1 photo you have wainscoting with several boards showing behind the beadstead.

On the plan in the thread you refer to the bed is placed directly against the wall.

The photo angle therefore can not show the smaller window since the photo is taken from further down in the room.

And it can not show the entrance door to the left of the window. The bed is not up against this wall!


2. The photograph does not show any corner. So there can be no window in the photo.

3. The light confirms the position of the window.

4. The hinges confirm the position of the entrance door.

5. The leg has fallen down in MJK1. The body was of course very fragile and when the police moved the bed back into it´s original position, the leg fell down. You can see it having done so in the photograph.

6. IF the door was so easy to open (Barnett´s statement), why would the killer not have been barricading the door?

7. IF the door was so easy to open - why use a pickaxe?

8. Why would McCarthy not have seen the body when he first pulled the curtain aside and looked inside the room? Because seeing two lumps of flesh on a table close to a window would make most people react as he did.

9. Why did the police border up not just Miller´s Court but also 26 Dorset Street?

10. What interest could the killer possibly have had in entering number 26 after the murder? The police was said to be worried about that.

11. Why wasn´t MJK3 made public together with MJK1?

12. Why did the coroner ask Prater if she had heard beds or tables being pulled around?

13. Why did Abberline say almost nothing about the crime scene? Compare it to other police testimonies in the JtR-case and you will immediately see there are A LOT more information in them compared to the murder on Kelly.

Have I mentioned everything or is there more?

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Why are we still discussing something that is obviously incorrect, in order so someone here can continue on some fantasy trip about secret doors and hidden agendas?

Before I delete my subscription to this thread I would just like to add, for the sake of those early in this study and now who are now getting spoonfed this tripe;

Marys Room, 13 Millers Court:formerly the salon of 26 Dorset
Dimensions: approx 10 x10 (all other measurements suggested here are incorrect.)
Layout: Single Entry from door facing and leading into courtyard, dining table under the windows on the wall abutting the alcove with the pump and wastebin, small night table on the left hand side of the bed, small bed set near to a wall constructed to deny access from the room to the rest of 26 Dorset, fireplace in the wall opposite the wall that abutted the walkway to the Courtyard and stone tunnel to Dorset, small drawer chest in corner opposite the bed.

There was no access through a wall that was built specifically to divide this room from the rest of the house, thereby assigning it to its only point of access, Millers Court. Yes, an old door was used to make the wall, and No, it wasnt hung in place or usable in any fashion, it was nailed in place and partially plastered over. There were 3 ways the room could be entered, 2 windows and through the ONLY door accessing the court.

This ensures that at least once readers were not given erroneous data solely intended to forward a theory, not accurately address any known facts.

So have fun,there is nothing of value going on here...and Happy Holidays folks.

[Pierre]

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

Why? She was drunk. And probably scared.

The validity is in the coroner asking this question.

Regards Pierre

[Robert]

Hi Pierre

And furthermore, even if McCarthy did volunteer to put his hand through the window, the police would have been wise not to allow it. They wouldn't have wanted McCarthy's blood on the glass and door. Once inside, the police would have checked window, door, kettle etc for signs of blood, they would have checked beneath the window to see whether the murderer had widened the hole and reached his arm through, etc.

There was no secret door, Pierre, and this isn't Cluedo.

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Robert,

If you like to experiment I have a suggestion to make. Put a bed diagonally across a corner, take a photo of it and publish it here!

Regards Pierre

How big is the bed? Why diagonally? Can you lend me some money to buy an 1888 camera?

Is it a hip bone or a leg bone, according to you?

[Pierre]

Why diagonally?

So everyone who thinks there is a corner in the picture will understand that there is no corner.

Regards Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

Youre right about that Pierre. The corner looks to be formed by the window, so you would need to see it under the table to see it.

Hip or leg?