Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[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

[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

[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!

[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?

[Elamarna]

yes Joshua,

i saw the thread, THE DISCOURSE!!!

help

[Robert]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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