Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[Sam Flynn]

The 'happy face' looks like a blemish on the photo itself, perhaps from a drop of developing fluid not shaken off when it was hung up to dry.

Indeed - it might have been a burst bubble of developing fluid, a curled-up hair or any number of things. It's almost certainly a photographic artefact, and not anything that was present on the body itself.

[Joshua Rogan]

I don't think the orange diamonds on each photo have anything to do with one another. The one on MJK3 seems to me to highlight part of a pile of bedding draped over the table, rather than part of her chemise or a sheet. The end of this bedding can be seen touching the floor under the table in MJK1.

The 'happy face' looks like a blemish on the photo itself, perhaps from a drop of developing fluid not shaken off when it was hung up to dry, rather than a mark or tattoo on whatever it is we're looking at.

[Sam Flynn]

No. 7 – The curve in her pelvis. In MJK1, you see where it arcs.

The spot you indicate in MJK1 is not her pelvis, but the left knee-cap, and it's clear that her left shin and foot are continuous with it. The pelvis is much smaller, and further back towards the axis of the body in MJK1, partially hidden by a piece of cloth and "eclipsed" by the left knee in the foreground. We can't actually see the curve of the pelvis in any of these photographs.

[Robert St Devil]

Steve. This is my interpretation so far. Still areas to work out.

No.1 - The red line indicates the crease inside of the orange area. The green line indicates the “puffy” fabric around her upper left arm. They look like one piece in MJK3, but it’s an optical illusion.
No. 2 – Her only visible digit appears to be a thumb because ‘this’ get misinterpreted as the beginning of her finger. It isn’t; it is a bruise or a shadow. The yellow line next to the bruise points to the underside of her wrist.
No. 3 – This heavier black line indicates the start of her pinky finger. As you can see, the hand is much larger than it would appear. The yellow line next to her pinky indicates the pinky knuckle.
No. 4 – The Happy Face
No. 5 – The Black Band
No. 6 – The blankets
No. 7 – The curve in her pelvis. In MJK1, you see where it arcs.

[Elamarna]

Thanks Pierre,

actually don't need it posted, I assume from you answer it either says 25ft on the map or you are using the scale on the map.

that’s all i was asking

Elamarna

[Elamarna]

Pierre

On MJK1 we may well be,
However, the sworn testimony of Bowyer who said the table was in front of the bed, which it is in MJK1 when viewed from where the small window would be and Phillips who said the table was on the left hand side of the bed, which was itself against the partition wall support the image as seen.

If we do not have the original plates, we need supporting evidence, be that sworn statements or press reports

We have no such support for MJK3 that is my point.

[Pierre]

Pierre,

those calculations would seem ok.

Can i just ask where you get the 25ft from, is that on the map or are you using another source?
Just not seen the map. so asking for information

elamarna

Goad's fire ensurance plan. I can post it here when I get to my other computer.

[Pierre]

Pierre,

Not sure i would go that far.
but it does raise question why?

It actually highlights what i was trying to raise yesterday;

We can see by naked eye that it has been changed from the commonly seen MJK3.

But what I was saying yesterday which you took as an attack on you, was that with out the original plate, we cannot know if the MJK3 that is common has itself been manipulated in the past.

As with MJK1. We cannot know if the MJK1 that is common has itself been manipulated in the past. So we may actually look at a manipulated MJK1.

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

those calculations would seem ok.

Can i just ask where you get the 25ft from, is that on the map or are you using another source?
Just not seen the map. so asking for information

elamarna

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

Not sure i would go that far.
but it does raise question why?

It actually highlights what i was trying to raise yesterday;

We can see by naked eye that it has been changed from the commonly seen MJK3.

But what I was saying yesterday which you took as an attack on you, was that with out the original plate, we cannot know if the MJK3 that is common has itself been manipulated in the past.

[Pierre]

Robert,

simple answer is no it does not look to be barricading the door.

I have reread the sgh thread on camera position, and while it may not work 100% as stands this can be explained by question of the size of the room.
There is still a debate going on about that, its here on the boards, sure you have seen it.

For any who haven’t; the arguments go from 10x10 , 12x12 and 15x15, and before I forget the room on the plans is not square, so none of those are accurate.

We also have the argument that while MJK1 shows the bed against the partition wall, it is not clear about the position of the head of the bed.

Taking all of into account, I feel that there are some differences between the photos, probably caused by some small movement of the bed and table before MJK3 was taken.

Further i will stick my neck out here, not something i am prone to do and say that i believe that SGH's suggestion is a fairly accurate rendition of the position

Robert be careful with your hypotheticals, can see them being cut and quote to support a particular position.

all the best, keep the good work up.
Steve

If you use Goads map you can calculate the measures of Mary Kelly´s room.

Dorset Street was 25 ft = 7,62 m.

Put a ruler across the street and you get 12 cm.

Divide 7,62 by 12. You get that 1 cm = 0,63 m.

Measure the room in 13 Miller´s Court on the same map. It is 4,5 * 8,5 centimeters.

Convert that into meters by multiplying 4,5 and 8,5 with 0,63.

The measures of the room in 13 Miller´s Court are 2,85 and 5,39 meters.

Multiply these and you get that the room was 15,42 square meters.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Thanks for posting the link to that new photo, Steve.
Have you seen the name of the jpg though? It's called "mary_kelly_improved_2", so I suspect it has been 'enhanced' in some way. Which might explain the difference.

"Improved"! In so called ripperology destroying evidence is called improvement!

How many of these ripperologists are old police men or journalists?

It is disgusting.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

I am going to leave you with a hypothetical that i cant entirely resolve.

The only reason you can't "entirely resolve" your hypothetical, Robert St Devil, is because you are ignoring the evidence in the case (just like Pierre, it has to be said). The evidence as to the layout of the furniture was given at the inquest by Dr Phillips and Inspector Abberline. But you seem to think they might have been lying. Both men also explained, in sworn testimonty, why they did not enter the room immediately but waited for the bloodhounds. But again you seem to think they might have been lying.

You are also being sucked into Pierre's mad world where the coroner was given secret information prior to the start of the inquest which he supressed and concealed from his jury but, at the same time, casually let slip his knowledge of that secret information by a question he asked Elizabeth Prater.

Of course, if you start to believe such crazy conspiracies and cover-ups are possible then you will develop all sorts of hypotheses that you will never be able to "entirely resolve" but if you stick with the evidence in the case then you will realise that the notion of the door being barricaded is sheer fantasy.

[Elamarna]

Robert,

simple answer is no it does not look to be barricading the door.

I have reread the sgh thread on camera position, and while it may not work 100% as stands this can be explained by question of the size of the room.
There is still a debate going on about that, its here on the boards, sure you have seen it.

For any who haven’t; the arguments go from 10x10 , 12x12 and 15x15, and before I forget the room on the plans is not square, so none of those are accurate.

We also have the argument that while MJK1 shows the bed against the partition wall, it is not clear about the position of the head of the bed.

Taking all of into account, I feel that there are some differences between the photos, probably caused by some small movement of the bed and table before MJK3 was taken.

Further i will stick my neck out here, not something i am prone to do and say that i believe that SGH's suggestion is a fairly accurate rendition of the position

Robert be careful with your hypotheticals, can see them being cut and quote to support a particular position.

all the best, keep the good work up.
Steve

[Robert St Devil]

RPierre and Elamarna.
I am going to leave you with a hypothetical that i cant entirely resolve.

[MJK3] the crack of light is the window, and there is a door to the left of it. The table is barricading the door (in the photo), but it is running underneath the window instead of alongside the door (asyou have suggested). The bed is next to the table.

When Tom Bowyer pays his infamous visit, he pushes aside the curtain and see that lump of flesh on the table under the window. Maybe he peers in to investigate the room further, and he sees Mary Kelly on the bed next to the table. He reports the incident, and the doctor arrives. Seeing no urgency, he awaits the police, who encounter the same thing the doctor did - a dead woman locked inside of a barricaded room. McCarty uses an axe to break open the door except it's the door in the partitioned wall. it could have happened this way if the photog was able to take an undisturbed mjk3.

[mjk1] the police move the bed and table away from the courtdoor, and against the partitioned wall, and the photog takes mjk1, offering a reason why we see partof the 'secret door' and possibly the hinges.

This solution would have left only one possible route for escape - the far window. With the murder of Mary Kelly leaving a vacant apartment, the police decide to board up all the windows in case the killer decides to return to the site.
The question is posed to Elizabeth Prater without revealing the underlying intention.

* Steve. I will point out some of those minor discrepancies between mjk1 and 3 in another post. I couldnt resolve the distance between the edge of the door and the corner of the window if mjk3 was taken with the room setup identical to mjk1. I would expect to see the entire door and more of the window. However i need to learn about 188& cameras. I know that thise old cameras can make optical illusions. Still, it would seem that the camera would have to be closer to the door and window. Does the table look like it could be barricading the door to you?