Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[MysterySinger]

Yes it can. We have no idea when the furniture was moved. No-one heard it being moved. There was no evidence as to the position of the furniture prior to the murder. The notion that the killer moved the table into a position where it would be knocked by the opening door, and the bed next to that table, is certainly a possibility - which would explain why the coroner wanted to explore it - but nothing is known for certain.

And the coroner's questioning only goes to the possibility of the furniture being moved to some extent. It does not suggest in any way that the door was barricaded. Indeed, as the evidence was that the door was not barricaded, the coroner could not possibly have been addressing this in his question.

Yes I take your point about the fact that we do not know for certain when/if the furniture was moved. I mis-remembered the quote about unnatural positioning from your post #87
"The coroner was not at room 13 Miller's Court when the police entered so he only knew what was in the evidence before him. That evidence included the fact that the table was in an unnatural position because the door knocked into it, suggesting that the furniture had been moved, hence his question".

I also added that to my own thoughts that the foot of the bed had indeed been moved slightly away from the partition wall, either by the murderer or by the Police. I don't think the bed is flush against the partition in MJK1 but that's just me.

However, just to be clear, I have never suggested that the door from Millers Court had been barricaded. That is not something I believe, but I do try to keep an open mind to other's suggestions.

[Elamarna]

Hi Robert


The picture in Richards book has I assume been manipulated to remove the lightstrip completely as least in the book.
The online version does give hints of not completely removing the area. You are right.
Has I said in previous post. Not really concerned with the change .
Although it is interesting, I wonder why it was done?

My aim was to use it as an example of how photos must have backing to give them credibility when we lack the original negative or in this case plate.

[Robert]

The other photo does give a hint of two or three blobs of light at the top, doesn't it?

[Elamarna]

yes Joshua,

i saw the thread, THE DISCOURSE!!!

help

[Wickerman]

Marys Room, 13 Millers Court:formerly the salon of 26 Dorset
Dimensions: approx 10 x10 (all other measurements suggested here are incorrect.)

Michael.
First point - Mary's room is the same width as the house (No.26) it is attached to, the Goad map is scaled and shows Kelly's room is not square.

Second point - The width of the house No.26 is most certainly not 10ft wide. The width of Dorset St. itself is scaled at 25ft across. The width of the house at No.26 is a little over half the width of the street.
So, something greater than 12.5ft.

The nearest example, being that provided by the Daily Telegraph, at 15ft the most suitable width for Kelly's room and the house itself.

The depth of Kelly's room, because it is not square, is close to half the width of Dorset St., therefore likely nearer to 12ft, when the scaling on the Goad map is used.

Now, I have explained my sources, perhaps you can now provide your sources?

[Joshua Rogan]

I was hoping Pierre would argue his corner, and say it was manipulated for the book, or that it was a different photo.

I fear it's too late, judging by another thread, the endless grilling has driven him mad!

[Elamarna]

Robert,

hip or knee, hard one that?
it does not look same shape as the leg in MJK1, so on a 55-45 chance go for hip.

really not sure, i assume you say hip?

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Joshua

its obviously been manipulated, if you look very carefully you can see where?
that’s not the point.

I was using it as a example of how we cannot take photos as gospel evidence unless there is evidence to back them up. MJK1 is back by the statements of Bowyer and Phillips

Pierre gives the impression of not understanding that, Indeed he appears to view sketches by newspapers in the same way.

Of course the fact that the light strip appears to have been removed, does not tell us if originally was on the plate or produced in processing of the plate or the first prints.
without the original photographic plate it is impossible to be 100% certain; that was the point I made which seemed too upset Pierre a great deal

In addition I raised the question was it another shot, a different photo?
I was hoping Pierre would argue his corner, and say it was manipulated for the book, or that it was a different photo.

He hasn't done that, just keeps banging on with the same list of questions.

when confronted with evidence he doesn't like he says its not that important to his ideas after all. This is not the first time he has done this

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

(Then again, I haven't checked the file name of the version with the strip of light - that one could be "mary_kelly_improved_1"!)

[Robert St Devil]

What's up, El. Man, you been busy.
Ill take a look at the photo when i get home. The iPhone doesnt size the picture where i can see it very well. Im all smiles today, found the press report in my signature bloc online. Nothing big, but i found & reported it.

What do you think - hip or leg? The curved bone mid-page.

[Elamarna]

pierre

"since I am not one of the researchers in the know, I am happy to think in another way:"

what don't you know?

This is not how researchers work?

what does that mean?

if you had understood what was said, you would see that I am saying not that you are wrong, but unless we know why one photo is different we cannot know which is the true representation.
like normal once part of your theory is put under the microscope, you say it is not important, you have done this several times.



"Since you use a reproduction in a book to generalize that the whole suggestion I have made is wrong, it only goes to show that you would do anything to refute the suggestion"

Pardon?

I did not go looking for the picture, I got the book in the post today and was just flicking the pages and saw the picture, i stupidly believed you might be interested in discussing it and the implications it could have on your theory.

what may i ask is wrong with using a book, it is a data source.

are we not allowed to disagree with you, because that is the impression you are creating.,





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!


Others disagree with your view on this, i trust the work of Richardh, SGH and simon Wood.

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

corners are defined by light, the photo is very murky, there are traces of a possible corner, alternatively the door could be open hiding a corner, and in my home the curtains extend some 18 inches from the window sideway, this would easily cover any corner; but we do not know

3. The light confirms the position of the window.

Wrong! it confirms the light source, not the window as we do not know the source used

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

No. in your view it does, most here disagree with you. I think it may be fair to say that MJK3 does not prove the light comes from the door, we discussed this at length yesterday.
and my post today must also ask serious questions about this

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.

again this is your impression, it is not fact. most do not accept the bed was moved any distance as it was not used as a barricade

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

Pardon? he did not expect to be seen, and the door was locked, you might as well suggest he would board the windows too


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

They didn’t know it was easy to open, can you prove they did. if it was barricaded how tell me would a pickaxe help?

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.

He didn't it was Bowyer. saying I had to look twice is a phrase in English, surely you know this? it donates shock or surprise!

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

Again that is your interpretation, mainly backed by one paper( yet you moan at others for using a book!) and a sketch which you treat as a photograph when its an artists interpretation

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.

Says who, again its your view based on the use of a secret door.

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

You Don't know?
MJK1 was found i believe by Don Rumberlow after 1960( forget the year) along with other Ripper material while searching police files, it was never "released to the public"
it appears MJK3 had been borrowed by a retired police officer, it was return after his death by his family.

both photos were (if genuine) early crime scene photos, they were not intended for the public . they were published by researchers after they had been found.


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

Probably because there was some evidence that the table had been moved, because the door hit it . if she had heard it, that would have helped establish a time of death. i say probably because we cannot be sure.


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

because there was nothing more to say, you obviously feel he should mention the barricade and the side door, but there is no evidence to suggest they are real; why would he mention things that didn't happen

[Robert St Devil]

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

Regards Pierre

We are talking about the big bone in the middle of the page, right; Pierre? The only leg i see in the picture is the one at the bottom (her lower right leg). I asked El if thought she had tattoos. Do you see the smiley face next to th black band?

I see her pelvis Pierre. Next I want to see if all those knife scratches line up with her muscular anatomy. But i see that bone being her hip-bone. Do you think the arc in the bone is supposed to be the bend in her leg? Are you saying the flesh on the table is the size of her leg??

[David Orsam]

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.

Yes it can. We have no idea when the furniture was moved. No-one heard it being moved. There was no evidence as to the position of the furniture prior to the murder. The notion that the killer moved the table into a position where it would be knocked by the opening door, and the bed next to that table, is certainly a possibility - which would explain why the coroner wanted to explore it - but nothing is known for certain.

And the coroner's questioning only goes to the possibility of the furniture being moved to some extent. It does not suggest in any way that the door was barricaded. Indeed, as the evidence was that the door was not barricaded, the coroner could not possibly have been addressing this in his question.

[Pierre]

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

Exactly what I think too.

He has a reason to ask it because of information he had gained from whatever source. The furniture had been moved about.

Yes. Otherwise the question would not have been posed.

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.

I agree. They wanted this information.

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.

I agree. And the killer must have been very silent or else he would not have had the opportunity to perform the mutilations.

Regards Pierre

[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.

Hi,

Since you use a reproduction in a book to generalize that the whole suggestion I have made is wrong, it only goes to show that you would do anything to refute the suggestion. And as you have seen but not commented on, the suggestion is built on several issues, not only a strip of light. What are your comments on those issues?

Regards Pierre