Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Morris Lewis Revisited

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Semper_Eadem View Post
    I can too.
    Although you go on to say the opposite.

    Comment


    • If Kelly was murdered by JtR it's difficult to see why he would need a fire, unless he was feeling a bit cold! Of course, light is another possibility, however, both Chapman and Eddowes were eviscerated by a killer who demonstrated a fairly high level of skill, at least according to the medical experts. However, the lighting conditions would have been poor and he was operating under serious time pressures.

      In contrast, Kelly's murderer demonstrated very little skill, adopting a cut and slash approach. Now, considering he would have been under significantly less time pressure-because she was murdered indoors-why, if he was JtR, would he have needed to light a fire to improve the lighting conditions in these circumstances, particularly as, by doing so, he risked drawing unwelcomed attention to his activities?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by John G View Post
        If Kelly was murdered by JtR it's difficult to see why he would need a fire, unless he was feeling a bit cold! Of course, light is another possibility, however, both Chapman and Eddowes were eviscerated by a killer who demonstrated a fairly high level of skill, at least according to the medical experts. However, the lighting conditions would have been poor and he was operating under serious time pressures.

        In contrast, Kelly's murderer demonstrated very little skill, adopting a cut and slash approach. Now, considering he would have been under significantly less time pressure-because she was murdered indoors-why, if he was JtR, would he have needed to light a fire to improve the lighting conditions in these circumstances, particularly as, by doing so, he risked drawing unwelcomed attention to his activities?
        Are you going back on your previous position now John?

        All these questions have been answered already.

        1. The killer might have murdered and/or mutilated Kelly in the nude to prevent blood splatter on his or her clothes. Hence a fire used to keep warm while "working".

        2. The killer was not superhuman with superhuman eyesight. If the curtains were blocking out the light from outside it would have been dark in the room. Everyone needs light to see. Previously (assuming Kelly was murdered by the same person who murdered the other women) he or she would have had light from street lamps to assist. If there was no other light source in the room (which there wasn't) the fire would have been vital for the killer to see what he or she was doing.

        3. Killer might have wanted to burn something.

        These kind of questions and answers, which are all theoretical, get us absolutely nowhere because you can always say "oh that's a bit unlikely" but unless you can rule them out conclusively they don't even begin to negate the evidence of Mrs Maxwell. But if the only way to answer them, consistent with Mrs M's evidence, was that Kelly was killed by someone other than the murderer of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes then that could be the answer.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          Are you going back on your previous position now John?

          All these questions have been answered already.

          1. The killer might have murdered and/or mutilated Kelly in the nude to prevent blood splatter on his or her clothes. Hence a fire used to keep warm while "working".

          2. The killer was not superhuman with superhuman eyesight. If the curtains were blocking out the light from outside it would have been dark in the room. Everyone needs light to see. Previously (assuming Kelly was murdered by the same person who murdered the other women) he or she would have had light from street lamps to assist. If there was no other light source in the room (which there wasn't) the fire would have been vital for the killer to see what he or she was doing.

          3. Killer might have wanted to burn something.

          These kind of questions and answers, which are all theoretical, get us absolutely nowhere because you can always say "oh that's a bit unlikely" but unless you can rule them out conclusively they don't even begin to negate the evidence of Mrs Maxwell. But if the only way to answer them, consistent with Mrs M's evidence, was that Kelly was killed by someone other than the murderer of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes then that could be the answer.
          I certainly wouldn't totally rule out the possibility that Kelly was killed by someone other than JtR, although I consider it unlikely.

          Would the killer have needed light to eviscerate Kelly, given the low level of skill demonstrated? This is Dr Biggs' opinion:

          "Once the abdomen is open, organs are recognizable as discreet, solid masses of relatively firm tissue in contrast to the intestines or collections of fat. The difference is readily apparent to the touch (hence no need for adequate lighting)." (Marriott, 2013).
          Last edited by John G; 05-06-2016, 12:51 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by John G View Post
            I certainly wouldn't totally rule out the possibility that Kelly was killed by someone other than JtR, although I consider it unlikely.
            I repeat: "These kind of questions and answers, which are all theoretical, get us absolutely nowhere because you can always say "oh that's a bit unlikely" but unless you can rule them out conclusively they don't even begin to negate the evidence of Mrs Maxwell."

            Originally posted by John G View Post
            Would the killer have needed light to eviscerate Kelly, given the low level of skill demonstrated? This is Dr Biggs opinion:

            "Once the abdomen is open, organs are recognizable as discreet, solid masses of relatively firm tissue in contrast to the intestines or collections of fat. The difference is readily apparent to the touch (hence no need for adequate lighting)." (Marriott, 2013).
            That was said by Dr Biggs in answer to a question about the murder and mutilation of Catherine Eddowes.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              I repeat: "These kind of questions and answers, which are all theoretical, get us absolutely nowhere because you can always say "oh that's a bit unlikely" but unless you can rule them out conclusively they don't even begin to negate the evidence of Mrs Maxwell."



              That was said by Dr Biggs in answer to a question about the murder and mutilation of Catherine Eddowes.
              But why do you say that Dr Biggs' opinion, which relates to the issue of "adequate lighting", would not be applicable generally? I would also point out that he was responding to a question of Trevor's, in which it was stated that Eddowes was mutilated, and her uterus and kidney removed, in "almost total darkness".

              Whether Kelly was murdered by JtR or not has no bearing on whether Maxwell's, or Lewis's evidence, should be accepted, as the same arguments would apply either way.
              Last edited by John G; 05-06-2016, 01:10 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post
                If Kelly was murdered by JtR it's difficult to see why he would need a fire, unless he was feeling a bit cold! Of course, light is another possibility, however, both Chapman and Eddowes were eviscerated by a killer who demonstrated a fairly high level of skill, at least according to the medical experts. However, the lighting conditions would have been poor and he was operating under serious time pressures.

                In contrast, Kelly's murderer demonstrated very little skill, adopting a cut and slash approach. Now, considering he would have been under significantly less time pressure-because she was murdered indoors-why, if he was JtR, would he have needed to light a fire to improve the lighting conditions in these circumstances, particularly as, by doing so, he risked drawing unwelcomed attention to his activities?
                I agree with you John.

                One has to decide on whether A) he was able to perform mutilations in darkness or B) not. This must be decided first in order to be able to hypothesize about the fire.

                1) If he was, the fire is to be explained as unnecessary and risky.

                2) If he wasn´t, we think he needed additional light.

                3) But did he need "a large fire", given the risk?

                4) If he wasn´t, how did he manage to perform the mutilations on the other victims?

                And so on and so forth.

                Regards, Pierre

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                  I agree with you John.

                  One has to decide on whether A) he was able to perform mutilations in darkness or B) not. This must be decided first in order to be able to hypothesize about the fire.

                  1) If he was, the fire is to be explained as unnecessary and risky.

                  2) If he wasn´t, we think he needed additional light.

                  3) But did he need "a large fire", given the risk?

                  4) If he wasn´t, how did he manage to perform the mutilations on the other victims?

                  And so on and so forth.
                  What was risky about a fire in 1888? Everyone had fires.

                  As for performing mutilations on the other victims (assuming it's the same killer) there were street lamps providing some illumination. Every human being needs light to see and if there was no light in room 13 Millers Court the killer needed to create some, otherwise he or she would not have been able to see what he or she was doing.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                    I agree with you John.

                    One has to decide on whether A) he was able to perform mutilations in darkness or B) not. This must be decided first in order to be able to hypothesize about the fire.

                    1) If he was, the fire is to be explained as unnecessary and risky.

                    2) If he wasn´t, we think he needed additional light.

                    3) But did he need "a large fire", given the risk?

                    4) If he wasn´t, how did he manage to perform the mutilations on the other victims?

                    And so on and so forth.

                    Regards, Pierre
                    Thanks Pierre. And I agree with the points that you've made.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by John G View Post
                      But why do you say that Dr Biggs' opinion, which relates to the issue of "adequate lighting", would not be applicable generally?
                      Oh come on John! You are not telling me that Dr Biggs has revealed to us in his answer that no murderer/mutilator ever needs light to see what they are doing are you? You cannot take his answer in respect of a specific question about one victim and apply that to other victims. In any case, his answer is irrelevant because he has no idea about the lighting conditions in Mitre Square in 1888 and, as to that, Dr Sequeira said "There would have been sufficient light to enable the murderer to commit his crime without the aid of any additional light".

                      Originally posted by John G View Post
                      I would also point out that he was responding to a question of Trevor's, in which it was stated that Eddowes was mutilated, and her uterus and kidney removed, in "almost total darkness".
                      Firstly Dr Biggs should not have been told that Eddowes was mutilated in "almost total darkness" because that was not the evidence, the evidence being that there was "sufficient light" albeit that Eddowes was killed in the darkest corner of the square. Secondly, the killer of Kelly did more (or carried out different mutilations) than simply remove her uterus and kidney.

                      Originally posted by John G View Post
                      Whether Kelly was murdered by JtR or not has no bearing on whether Maxwell's, or Lewis's evidence, should be accepted, as the same arguments would apply either way.
                      Well it most certainly does if the point being made is that JTR's eyesight was superhuman in that he did not need light to see he was doing, as shown by the fact that he supposedly murdered and mutilated his other victims in "almost total darkness" and, thus, it is said, he would not have needed to light a fire at 9:00am therefore the existence of the fire somehow proves that Kelly must have been murdered in the middle of the night.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                        What was risky about a fire in 1888? Everyone had fires.

                        As for performing mutilations on the other victims (assuming it's the same killer) there were street lamps providing some illumination. Every human being needs light to see and if there was no light in room 13 Millers Court the killer needed to create some, otherwise he or she would not have been able to see what he or she was doing.
                        But the room may well have been illuminated by a roaring fire, considering the likely quality of the curtain that covered the window. In fact, even some modern curtains can be seen through.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by John G View Post
                          Thanks Pierre. And I agree with the points that you've made.
                          You are seriously agreeing with Pierre that the killer of Kelly did not need light to see what he was doing simply on the basis that other victims were killed and mutilated in the streets at night?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                            Oh come on John! You are not telling me that Dr Biggs has revealed to us in his answer that no murderer/mutilator ever needs light to see what they are doing are you? You cannot take his answer in respect of a specific question about one victim and apply that to other victims. In any case, his answer is irrelevant because he has no idea about the lighting conditions in Mitre Square in 1888 and, as to that, Dr Sequeira said "There would have been sufficient light to enable the murderer to commit his crime without the aid of any additional light".



                            Firstly Dr Biggs should not have been told that Eddowes was mutilated in "almost total darkness" because that was not the evidence, the evidence being that there was "sufficient light" albeit that Eddowes was killed in the darkest corner of the square. Secondly, the killer of Kelly did more (or carried out different mutilations) than simply remove her uterus and kidney.



                            Well it most certainly does if the point being made is that JTR's eyesight was superhuman in that he did not need light to see he was doing, as shown by the fact that he supposedly murdered and mutilated his other victims in "almost total darkness" and, thus, it is said, he would not have needed to light a fire at 9:00am therefore the existence of the fire somehow proves that Kelly must have been murdered in the middle of the night.
                            The fundamental point is that Dr Biggs' believed a victim could be eviscerated in almost total darkness, i.e. with the perpetrator chiefly relying on touch.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by John G View Post
                              But the room may well have been illuminated by a roaring fire, considering the likely quality of the curtain that covered the window. In fact, even some modern curtains can be seen through.
                              That's just a pure guess. And I now don't know even what you are saying. There was obviously a fire in that room. Either it was extinguished prior to the murder, in which case it tells us nothing about the time of the murder, or it was burning during the murder, in which case (if the curtain was transparent) it means that the room would have been illuminated during the murder, whatever time the murder was, or it was lit after the murder in which case it tells us nothing about the time of the murder.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                                You are seriously agreeing with Pierre that the killer of Kelly did not need light to see what he was doing simply on the basis that other victims were killed and mutilated in the streets at night?
                                I think Pierre said that he wouldn't need a "large fire." The level of available light would depend on what time Kelly was killed, and how much light would have penetrated the curtain. I would also refer you to my earlier post, i.e. referring to Dr Biggs' opinion that the perpetrator could have largely relied on touch.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X