Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[Pierre]

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.

Amen.

[David Orsam]

Pierre, do you think that if you ask a question enough times, people will forget that it has already been answered?

Although your post is addressed to Elamarna who is perfectly capable of responding, I am going to answer those questions relating to the evidence, all of which have been answered already, avoiding those relating to what is seen in MJK1 which is a stale discussion.

6. IF the door was so easy to open (Barnett´s statement), why would the killer not have been barricading the door? - Firstly, the killer would have to have known that the door was "so easy" to open. Secondly, he would have had to have believed that other people knew it was "so easy" to open. Thirdly, we are (if JTR was one person) dealing with someone who mutilated women in the open streets, and in one case in a square, patrolled by police officers.

7. IF the door was so easy to open - why use a pickaxe? - Well, you have to know the door was so easy to open. If you don't then a pickaxe is sensible

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. I'm not sure if you are confusing McCarthy with Bowyer but sometimes people need to look twice to take something in. It's no more complicated than that.

9. Why did the police border up not just Miller´s Court but also 26 Dorset Street? As you have not established that the police boarded up 26 Dorset Street - and you well know it - the very fact that you ask this question, based on a single newspaper report which is contradicted by another newspaper report, demonstrates that you are not asking the question in good faith.

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. Nothing was said about the killer entering number 26 after the murder. The single newspaper report you are referring to made clear that it was prior to the murder that the police felt 26 Dorset Street should be boarded up so as not to allow the killer anywhere to hide; yet this story is contradicted by another press report.

11. Why wasn´t MJK3 made public together with MJK1? Considering that MJK1 wasn't made public in 1888 it's a pointless question.

12. Why did the coroner ask Prater if she had heard beds or tables being pulled around? Yawn. Due to the fact that the furniture was found in an unnatural position as per the evidence of the divisional surgeon.

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. You don't seem to be aware that a witness only answers questions he is asked in the witness box at an inquest. Had the coroner or the jury wanted more information they could have asked. Further, as I have previously mentioned, the jury was taken to the crime scene so were able to see everything they needed to see in the room for the themselves.

Have I mentioned everything or is there more? Please no more.

[Pierre]

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?

Leg. If you google "hip bone" you will see that.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

The validity is in the coroner asking this question.

Once again, the coroner asking Prater if she heard furniture being moved is explained by the fact that the divisional surgeon found the furniture in an unnatural position, suggesting that the killer had moved it during the night. The idea that the coroner had some secret information which he withheld from his jury to the effect that the door had been barricaded by the furniture is frankly barking mad.

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

have you yet read the post about the different MJK3 photo.( post 120)

[Elamarna]

Pierre

challenging accepted ideas is one thing, but you challenge, and challenge yet put forward nothing in your arguments other than my view is right.

it is not possible to discus subjects sensibly when one side will not accept any evidence that does not fit their view.

to ask the same set of questions over and over again, even when you have been given clear answers does not i am afraid show an open and enquiring mind, it shows just the opposite.

The views proposed by you, are claimed to be new and challenging, they are not.

I notice no comments on the post this after noon about a completely different MJK3,

You make a great deal about Bowyer saying he had to look twice, that is a phrase commonly used in English to express surprise or shock have you considered that this was what he meant?




to say i looked twice may not mean two seperate looks, its a phrase in english you must know that.

[Elamarna]

David and Robert

on a serious note, did you see my post about mjk3 and Richard Jones book? (post 120)

any comments?

Steve

[GUT]

Pierre

challenging accepted ideas is one thing, but you challenge, and challenge yet put forward nothing in your arguments other than my view is right.

it is not possible to discus subjects sensibly when one side will not accept any evidence that does not fit their view.

to ask the same set of questions over and over again, even when you have been given clear answers does not i am afraid show an open and enquiring mind, it shows just the opposite.

The views proposed by you, are claimed to be new and challenging, hey are not.

I notice no comments on the post this after noon about a completely different MJK3,

You make a great deal about Bowyer saying he had to look twice, that is a phrase commonly used in English to express surprise or shock have you considered that this was what he meant?




to say i looked twice may not mean two seperate looks, its a phrase in english you must know that.

Bet he ignores this.

[GUT]

Why? She was drunk. And probably scared.

The validity is in the coroner asking this question.

Regards Pierre

So asking a question makes something true

[Elamarna]

Hi GUT,
I bet he does too.

he has ignore the post about different versions of MJK3, which completely blows his theory out of the water.

[GUT]

is frankly barking mad.

As is pretty much every word Pierre posts.

[Pierre]

Hi all,

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

Elamarna

And therefore anything Pierre says here can be dismissed as impossible.

Regards Pierre

[MysterySinger]

The validity is in the fact that the Coroner asked the question. Why would he?

He has a reason to ask it because of information he had gained from whatever source. The furniture had been moved about. The reason for asking Prater was in trying to determine the time of the murder (or at least guided by the timing of the movement of the furniture) - that is just my assumption.

If Prater answers that she heard no movement, then either it wasn't loud enough to be heard (or to wake her), or it happened at a time when she was out, or it didn't happen. The last possibility we know cannot be true in this case.

[Joshua Rogan]

I'm intrigued by this second MJ3 photo, but I don't have a copy of the book, so can't comment. Is the book worth buying aside from that photo?

[Elamarna]

And therefore anything Pierre says here can be dismissed as impossible.

Regards Pierre

no Pierre,

i have written an instructive piece, which does not show you are wrong, its not about that.

it says that photographs without the original source are questionable.
the same would be true of MJK1 if not backed at the inquest by 2 sworn statements

I have spoken about 2 different prints of what claims to be the same image. one of which gives no backing what so ever for the idea you have put forward, who knows which is true.