Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Robert St Devil]

Thats on me, Sam. The line pointing out her pelvis doesnt end where the '7' is. There were too many lines in the pelvis/hand area, so i drew a line up from the '7' to where her pelvis is. Where the '7' is would be around her knee, i agree.

[Robert]

This book would probably be very helpful. Unfortunately it seems a bit hard to get hold of nowadays.

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/firstphotos.html

[Sam Flynn]

This book would probably be very helpful. Unfortunately it seems a bit hard to get hold of nowadays.

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media...rstphotos.html

Agreed, Robert. It's a great book.

[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

Hi,

here it is. 25ft is on the right.

Regards Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

Is 'foot' the metric of neasurement?

[Pcdunn]

Is 'foot' the metric of neasurement?

The map does show the "foot" marker after 25-- so I would say yes.

[Sam Flynn]

Is 'foot' the metric of neasurement?

It was a unit of measurement in the old "Imperial" system, Robert. One foot - you'll see it written as 1’ or 1ft - is approximately 30.5 centimetres.