Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

I just cannot see Dr. Bond (and Phillips?), provide a conclusion as to ToD based on the last known time she ate unless that information was obtained somehow.

Well exactly the same thing happened in the 1907 murder of Emily Dimmock (as set out in my book 'The Camden Town Murder Mystery'). The doctor in that case had 'made inquiries' as a result of which he understood that Emily usually took her dinner between 11pm and midnight and went on to draw conclusions about time of death as a result. This case went to trial so that we definitely know there was no evidence as to what time Dimmock ate her meal on the night she was murdered. It was no more than a guess in other words and I have no doubt that this is essentially what happened in 1888.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;385921]

That is an inaccurate summary of the evidence Pierre.

Yes it was a common occurrence according to Prater but you cannot say it was not a common occurrence "according to a lot of people" because no-one else has expressed a view.

You donīt get the point, David. The point is that no one else said anything about the issue.

In short, the only evidence we have is the evidence of Prater who said it was a common occurrence based on her own experience.

Prater did not express that phrase. She said "frequently" and "nothing uncommon".

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;385922]

The problem, Pierre, with your idiosyncratic approach of looking for "tendencies" - for which you have never provided an example of any actual historian doing such a thing - is that you never factor in the possibility of the witness telling the truth.

Not idiosyncratic, that is just a word for specific things done by people. Idiographic means explaining and understanding the past - writing about it - from a point of view where you do not use structural regularities. David, it is remarkable that you know nothing about source criticism. It is known world wide at the universities. And it is not my job to fill that gap. So stop accusing me of not having provided you with material. I gave you lists of literature and obviously you did not bother to look into it.

If Prater frequently heard a cry of murder from the back of the lodging house then there was no "tendency" in her evidence was there? She was simply telling the truth.

This is not an academic approach but the approach of a child believing what he reads. What are the sources at hand, David? They are sources for murder investigation and an inquest. But I understand that you simply - it is a simple fact - have no historical education and therefore can not follow me.

So how do you know Prater was not telling the truth?

Why do you ask that question - since I have never stated that I "know" that. Did you not see the question I wrote?

Here it is again, David:

Is there a reason to think that the experience described by Prater is not true?

It would be better for the discussion if you could please try and read what other people say instead of putting words in their mouths. It would also help your own understanding a lot.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

You donīt get the point, David. The point is that no one else said anything about the issue.

But that was the EXACT point I was making!

No-one else said anything about the issue so you cannot say "it was not a common occurrence according to a lot of people" which were your exact words.

[David Orsam]

Prater did not express that phrase. She said "frequently" and "nothing uncommon".

You do realise that something which happens frequently and is "nothing uncommon" is a common occurrence don't you Pierre?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Columbo;385923]

Didn't Prater say "such cries were not un-common"? That doesn't necessarily mean it had to be cries of "murder" does it?

Hi Columbo,

It is a good observation. However, in the inquest source she says "cries of murder", so that is the specific concept she is talking about in at least that source.

Which is very interesting to me is that after several murders of prostitutes, and the police patrols, civilian patrols etc, and the fact everyone was emotionally charged about the murders, no one went to investigate this cry of "murder".

Well, they did. The police investigation source and the inquest source are both focusing on that statement made by Prater. So they were clearly interested in her statements about the cry of murder.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

You donīt get the point, David. The point is that no one else said anything about the issue.

So? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What you're inadvertantly admitting is that the only evidence we have on the issue is that the cry was not uncommon. You're admitting that there is no evidence or testimony contradicting Prater.

Prater did not express that phrase. She said "frequently" and "nothing uncommon".

Wow. Reduced to that. Just, wow.

[David Orsam]

Why do you ask that question - since I have never stated that I "know" that. Did you not see the question I wrote?

Here it is again, David:

Is there a reason to think that the experience described by Prater is not true?

It would be better for the discussion if you could please try and read what other people say instead of putting words in their mouths. It would also help your own understanding a lot.

Firstly Pierre, you haven't even quoted yourself accurately. What you said in the same post about Prater was this:

"Was she telling the truth? Or do we see a tendency in the source, given that a murder occurred in Millerīs Court on the same night?"

So, by your own phrasing of the question, there are two possibilities: either she was telling the truth or.... she was not telling the truth. You are saying that there was a "tendency" in her evidence which must mean that she was not telling the truth.

So Pierre I did read what you said. You said that Prater was not telling the truth at the inquest about cries of murder at night being a common occurrence. I asked how you know she was not telling the truth. Instead of an answer you just posted drivel.

[David Orsam]

This is not an academic approach but the approach of a child believing what he reads. What are the sources at hand, David? They are sources for murder investigation and an inquest. But I understand that you simply - it is a simple fact - have no historical education and therefore can not follow me.

Pierre, I am very willing to learn and want to develop a "historical education" and I don't wish to be rude but you are, of course, just a name ("Pierre") on a screen and could be a schoolboy, or schoolgirl, posting unrelenting garbage.

So in order to assist me to develop my historical education, could you kindly direct me to some published historians who have written about murder investigations and who, in doing so, have discussed the "tendency" of sources in the way you have done so on this forum?

Given that you tell us your approach is the proper historical method I assume you must be able to provide me with loads of examples. Because I am sure you are not conducting a radical and groundbreaking approach to history on this forum which has never been done before by any published historian.

I look forward to your reply with a list of examples of murder investigating historians I can read to educate myself.

[Henry Flower]

Pierre,

Yet again you are reduced to asserting that someone who has successfully countered one of your hypotheses simply cannot follow your historically educated reasoning or methodology.

That being the case, why don't you shove your assertions of superiority up where the sun don't shine, and go post somewhere else, where the real historians will be able to follow you?

There is no evidence Prater told anything other than the truth. There is no evidence you have any historical bona fides. You don't write like a historian. You don't write like an adult. You write, frankly, like an undergraduate student with a chip on his shoulder.

[Columbo]

There is something that has been mentioned and that's the food Mary Kelly ate. Anyone have thoughts on that? After some quick googling it appears an average of 6-8 hours is required for basic digestion and it takes a minium of 30+ hours to become waste.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Pierre,

Yet again you are reduced to asserting that someone who has successfully countered one of your hypotheses simply cannot follow your historically educated reasoning or methodology.

That being the case, why don't you shove your assertions of superiority up where the sun don't shine, and go post somewhere else, where the real historians will be able to follow you?

There is no evidence Prater told anything other than the truth. There is no evidence you have any historical bona fides. You don't write like a historian. You don't write like an adult. You write, frankly, like an undergraduate student with a chip on his shoulder.

I agree there's no reason for her to lie. I still wonder if anyone investigated the source when it happened though.

Columbo

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=Pierre;385974]

Hi Columbo,

It is a good observation. However, in the inquest source she says "cries of murder", so that is the specific concept she is talking about in at least that source.



Well, they did. The police investigation source and the inquest source are both focusing on that statement made by Prater. So they were clearly interested in her statements about the cry of murder.

Regards, Pierre

I was more curious, since Prater didn't say she went outside to see if anyone was getting killed, if anyone else heard the same cry and went looking for it? I haven't seen any reports on that. If there is can someone point me to them?

Columbo

[Wickerman]

There is something that has been mentioned and that's the food Mary Kelly ate. Anyone have thoughts on that? After some quick googling it appears an average of 6-8 hours is required for basic digestion and it takes a minium of 30+ hours to become waste.

Columbo

General digestion times are of little use, Kelly's abdomen contained the remains of fish and potatoes, so just look up boiled fish and baked potato, which is most likely what those late night eateries served to the poor.
Digestion periods differ in everybody, so times given can only be only estimates.

[David Orsam]

Hi Columbo,

It is a good observation. However, in the inquest source she says "cries of murder", so that is the specific concept she is talking about in at least that source.

It wasn't really a good observation then was it Pierre?