Bowyer´s inquest testimony

[Joshua Rogan]

But Pierre, you've been told several times WHY the police didn't enter the room for 2 hours - they were awaiting the arrival of the bloodhounds. Whether Abberline spent those two hours a) scratching his head and wondering how the hell he was going to open the door when the dogs finally arrived, or b) controlling the crowds, searching the court and interviewing witnesses, is anybody's guess. But I'd go for b).

[Joshua Rogan]

The theory that the strip of light is coming through the hinge side of the door only really works if the door is open somewhat. External door frames (and most internal ones) have a strip of raised wood against which the door closes, and which prevents things like wind, rain and light getting straight through. With the door firmly closed and the camera view perpendicular to the door as in Pierre's post #106, there would be no gap for any light to shine through.

[Pierre]

Pierre, you claim that the door could not be opened through the window if it was barricaded the way you suggest. Do you mean by this that the door could not be unlocked through the window?

Hi Frank,

Abberline never described the entrance door to Miller´s Court himself when he testified but he referred to Joe Barnett:

"An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy."

http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...est_kelly.html

Abberline was a police officer and would have understood how to open the door if there was any possibility to open it. And according to the description of Barnett, it would have been very easy. So why did Abberline not open the door to enter the room? What did he do for more than two hours outside of this room? That is my point.

There is another entrance to the room from 26 Dorset Street. The doorway is clearly seen at Goad´s fire insurance plans. This doorway is an original part of the ground floor in 26 Dorset Street. This ground floor is originally a freehold shop.

McCarthy knew this. Naturally he knew about the doorway between the rooms. So there is a possibility that Abberline used this doorway and entered the room with the photographer from that side. In that case, we can see this on MJK3, since the table and bed are up against the entrance door and not the "partition", i.e. the door in the doorway leading from 26 Door(!)set Street.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Robert,

You should reconsider the measures. I have used the same scale as in this plan: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2480

Regards 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?

[Elamarna]

Robert,

I will read that thread again, it looks quite technical which is good.

Have looked at the picture, and studied it again in photo software, yes there is something, but it is impossible to tell what it is.
However if Pierre is correct in his positioning, theN there is a possible object between the table and the door. this is not mentioned by any of the eye witnesses.
Think this supports the view that Pierre is incorrect in his appraisal of the photo

Hard to tell what those marks are:
lots going on in that area,
are we really looking at a human leg?
they could be tattoos, or how about "Ringworm" that looks just like that. Alternatively could be artefacts caused by processing of plate or marks on object if not leg.
Again could the whole of that area not have been painted in at the studio, it does look very strange.

[FrankO]

They should have known how to open a door. And in this case it should have been really easy. If the door was not barricaded, that is.

Pierre, you claim that the door could not be opened through the window if it was barricaded the way you suggest. Do you mean by this that the door could not be unlocked through the window?

[Elamarna]

Pierre

in answer to your questions

yes you would, that is how photographs are produced, by the means of transmission and the recording of light, in a dark area, a light source will always show up. Modern software ensures that we can see almost anything no matter how faint the image may be.

You misunderstand, MJK1 on its own it is interesting but only gives a suggestion However the image it is supported by the statements of Bowyer and Phillips, and it in return supports their statements. this as you are aware is out evidence works, one source of data supports another.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,
I am sorry but your sketch doesn't match MJK3 at all: the strip of light should be behind the table, not next to the table. Remember the door opens on the window side and is hinged on the far side? Your floor plan doesn't match this. Also one can see on MJK3 that the strip of light would be too far from anywhere to be able to reach with an outstretched arm to unlatch it. My take is: the door on MJK3 is ajar, the bed was moved a little bit to an angle from the wall, so the camera could be placed. There is an angle of something like 60 degrees between the table and the door behind it. The corner of the room would then actually be hidden behind the door.
Regards,
IchabodCrane

Hi,

No, you are making the wrong interpretation.

The strip of light is on the correct side if you use James Tully´s plan, as are the hinges. The door could then be opened from the window. That is why I ask why they didn´t open it. They were the police. They should have known how to open a door. And in this case it should have been really easy. If the door was not barricaded, that is.

I have marked the strip of light with orange, now you may see it.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Hello Elamarna & Pierre.
I worked up an approximate scale for the door hypothesis. I based the scale on an approximation for the crack of light. I used 6 inches. When I used 1 foot, Mary Kelly would have had to be a hobbit to exit. Anything less than 6 inches drew out a door that dwarfed Mary Kelly.

[DOOR] I made the door 6x3’. I made the approximation that the table height was 3 ft. That meant, if the crack of light was above the table, it was higher than 3 ft off the floor. I used the bottom of the crack of light as the midpoint of the door (3 ft. off the ground).

[CORNER] The corner is 9 to 12” away.

[TABLE] Because the table is pressed up against the door in Pierre’s hypothesis, I used the same 6” scale to draw out the table (roughly making it 3 ft. in length, or the width of the door).

[LENGTH OF THE BED] The red line at the bottom of the painting is 6.5’ based on the 6” scale. However… we know that scales slide based on distance. I estimated 3” based on her hip bone. The orange line in the middle of the drawing is 6.5’ based on this 3” scale. I centered the “bed” on her pelvis, although she was probably higher up. I used a vertical line because I didn’t know how to approximate a slant for the bed that wouldn’t conflict with the slant of the table.

Hi Robert,

You should reconsider the measures. I have used the same scale as in this plan: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2480

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

If an area is in shadow, it is darker, therefore any light source in that area shows up more strongly than in bright light.
The light strip in your version is from the door, and would be under the table which is against the door, it would stand out like a beacon.
Check it your self, use a chair, put it close to a window, under the chair is dark right?
place a a light source under the chair, say the leds on a cell/mobile phone
do you not see the led?

Sure. But would you always get that effect on a photograph?


I have no set views on the subject, and am happy to look at any new ideas or theories. However i will challenge anything where there is a lack of obvious evidence.
Pierre you support your position by asking about:

The question from the coroner about beds and tables being pulled around.
The leg has fallen down on MJK1.
The working position for the killer is right on MJK3.
The problems with entering the room.
The possibility of another entrance and escape way from 13 Miller´s Court through 26 Dorset Street.
The photograph MJK3 itself.
This photograph having been kept secret for decades.

You have your own opinions and views on these that is obvious; but the same applies as did with Michael last night, there is no evidence in any of those points, it is your view and interpretation of them with it appears nothing to support your view other than the belief that the view given is correct.

And so do you when you say the MJK1 is evidence in itself.

And I naturally don´t mean to criticize you personally, so please don´t think that, but to point out our methods in this discussion. It is OK to discuss like this, since it has got nothing to do with finding a killer. And I sincerely hope that through the discussion we will get new ideas which can lead us forward. Thanks Elamarna.

Regards Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Elamarna.

Take a look at the MJK photos in this link : http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2480

1. In mjk3, do you see something that looks like the side of a chair or a broom handle in front of the curtain? It looks slightly lighter than the curtain around it.

2. Does Mary Jane Kelly have tattoos on her right shin? In mjk3, focus in on her leg at the bottom of the photo. You should see a black band. Directly to the left of that band, do you see something that looks like a "happy face"? Its a circle with two eyes and a squiggly smile. It looks like it has a scarf tied around its next as you can see a circle with 3 'legs' in front of the "happy face". Looking around that area at different zoom angles, you start to make out shape, but nothing definite. I saw something that looked like an infinity symbol except with3 loops up and to the left of the happy face. To the right of the black band, you see indistinct patterns as well. In mjk1, she looks like she has a butterfly on her ankle.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Elamarna & Pierre.
I worked up an approximate scale for the door hypothesis. I based the scale on an approximation for the crack of light. I used 6 inches. When I used 1 foot, Mary Kelly would have had to be a hobbit to exit. Anything less than 6 inches drew out a door that dwarfed Mary Kelly.

[DOOR] I made the door 6x3’. I made the approximation that the table height was 3 ft. That meant, if the crack of light was above the table, it was higher than 3 ft off the floor. I used the bottom of the crack of light as the midpoint of the door (3 ft. off the ground).

[CORNER] The corner is 9 to 12” away.

[TABLE] Because the table is pressed up against the door in Pierre’s hypothesis, I used the same 6” scale to draw out the table (roughly making it 3 ft. in length, or the width of the door).

[LENGTH OF THE BED] The red line at the bottom of the painting is 6.5’ based on the 6” scale. However… we know that scales slide based on distance. I estimated 3” based on her hip bone. The orange line in the middle of the drawing is 6.5’ based on this 3” scale. I centered the “bed” on her pelvis, although she was probably higher up. I used a vertical line because I didn’t know how to approximate a slant for the bed that wouldn’t conflict with the slant of the table.

[GUT]

David,

thank you for the encouragement. last week i said no more responding to Pierre, but changed my mind.
he needs to supply evidence for his views, or not give them.

you by the way are doing a great job on challenging him, different to my approach but i do admire it

steve

G'day Steve

The only problem is, for all the great posts you are both making .pierre doesn't even attempt to engage, he still provides nothing but BS about data and "knowing" but can't say, and material that he has disappearing,

He is full of .....

[Elamarna]

Just to say Steve, for what it's worth, that, while I know you might regard it as a frustrating waste of time, I think you should carry on replying to Pierre, rather than ignoring him, because your posts are read (by me, at least, and others I'm sure) and are very effective.

David,

thank you for the encouragement. last week i said no more responding to Pierre, but changed my mind.
he needs to supply evidence for his views, or not give them.

you by the way are doing a great job on challenging him, different to my approach but i do admire it

steve

[Abby Normal]

As are yours David.

Ditto