Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[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.

[Elamarna]

David and Robert

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

any comments?

Steve

[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]

Pierre,

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[Robert St Devil]

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?

[Pierre]

Why diagonally?

So everyone who thinks there is a corner in the picture will understand that there is no corner.

Regards Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Robert,

If you like to experiment I have a suggestion to make. Put a bed diagonally across a corner, take a photo of it and publish it here!

Regards Pierre

How big is the bed? Why diagonally? Can you lend me some money to buy an 1888 camera?

Is it a hip bone or a leg bone, according to you?

[Robert]

Hi Pierre

And furthermore, even if McCarthy did volunteer to put his hand through the window, the police would have been wise not to allow it. They wouldn't have wanted McCarthy's blood on the glass and door. Once inside, the police would have checked window, door, kettle etc for signs of blood, they would have checked beneath the window to see whether the murderer had widened the hole and reached his arm through, etc.

There was no secret door, Pierre, and this isn't Cluedo.

[Pierre]

This might lend some validity to your theory, had Mrs Prater replied "yes". But I believe her answer was "none whatever".

Why? She was drunk. And probably scared.

The validity is in the coroner asking this question.

Regards Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Pierre]

My Dear Pierre,

you have obviously read this thread, yet you appear to simply ignore it,
without going into too much detail: why do you disagree?
Do you have evidence to support your rejection or is it just your view that the bed is in front of the door and therefore this idea cannot be correct?

I am not trying to attack you, I really would like you to explain why you reject scientific evidence? what are the rest of us missing?

Hi Elamarna,

Thanks! That is a very good question: "What are the rest of us missing"?

I will try to answer it:

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!


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

3. The light confirms the position of the window.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Have I mentioned everything or is there more?

Regards Pierre