The fire in the grate...

[Doctor X]

What other source of light would Jack have assuming he did not have a "Bull's Eye" hidden somewhere?

--J.D.

[paul emmett]

Paul...there is no record of any wet clothes in that room that night, so if you like the large fire idea yourself, perhaps factor in dry clothing.

So, about the fire. I said "damp," not "wet." And, Michael, I went for the dampness in the air because I DON'T like the idea of a large fire. I think Abberline was wrong, and even though Sam disagrees, I think Abberline was wrong because he felt that the fire was earlier than it actually was.

I like JTR starting the fire, because MJK wouldn't burn clothes, damp or dry.

I like small fire, because of time constraints and the fact that clothes don't burn so well, and the risk involved.

I don't like the fire for heat or light, because--see above.

I guess I think JTR used the small fire late, after the mutilations, to burn evidence.

[Doctor X]

Wise decision.

My last sentence was not intended to imply it is "dogma" on your part that you doubt Stride is a Jack victim.

--J.D.

Its not a dogma Doc, its just I am the type of person who doesn't just hold on to things that he doesn't need, or that have proven to be useless over time.

Cheers again.

[Doctor X]

One that is far less severe than all priors, with zero accompanying wounds.

Not really, but explicable by his "murderus interuptus."

I think if people would abandon the idea that these cases were "solved" by comments from Bond and Macnaughten, we would be talking about these cases for what they actually are,.. unattributed forensically, physically, and individually unsolved.

Frankly, I do not think most care what Bond and Macnaughten stated since most know they did not "solve" the case.

As for the rest, certainly people pile on "reasonable assumptions" to arrive at conclusions.

Notice, I am not stating you are wrong by some fiat: you may be correct about Stride. I am not convinced she is not a victim, but I do not hold it as some dogma either.

--J.D.

Seems to me a cut throat rather fits with Jack, though that topic--whether or not Stride is or is not a Ripper victim--will go around in circles I am sure.

--J.D.

One that is far less severe than all priors, with zero accompanying wounds.

I think if people would abandon the idea that these cases were "solved" by comments from Bond and Macnaughten, we would be talking about these cases for what they actually are,.. unattributed forensically, physically, and individually unsolved.

Some have even moved on from assuming he killed those 5 to now feeling they can use the kill details as the "evidence" to try and psychologically profile the killer.

Talk about the cart before the horse.

Cheers Doc.

[Doctor X]

Seems to me a cut throat rather fits with Jack, though that topic--whether or not Stride is or is not a Ripper victim--will go around in circles I am sure.

--J.D.

And Im sure you do believe that of everyone here, only us 4 question some "accepted" beliefs about the cases.

Since you put me in with 2 authors of Ripper books, a historian of crime, and a very interested researcher, all who are interested in trying to find the truth... rather than just following like sheep the a** in front,.. Ill live with that though.

I wish you could see how often your position of "correctness" makes me smile....its a little like the younger kid hanging with the older kids chiming in when they give an opinion on something....like frogs make great pets...and you wanting to be a part of their world saying....yeah, thats what I think too.

Its ok to have your own opinion Tom, as a matter of fact, Im sure its preferable to some of the many unproven ones that you support so vehemently.

And as far as AP goes...you would be doing well if you had a fraction of his talent as a writer.

Cheers.

[Tom_Wescott]

It is a fringe effort, Perry. Consider the people I debate this with on a daily basis:

Glenn Andersson
Fisherman
AP Wolf
You

Doesn't get much fringer than that, partner.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Since no-one but Tom used the word "idiots" when making his point, it would seem no police were referred to in that way. Sam...thanks for pointing out that Abberline had no way of knowing how hot or bright the fire was while the killer worked.

Paul...there is no record of any wet clothes in that room that night, so if you like the large fire idea yourself, perhaps factor in dry clothing.

On Liz Stride, it is always funny seeing support for her removal being described as some sort of "fringe" effort, like she's a perfect match for a Ripper victim and should obviously be included. Which is of course ludicrous, she has none of the usual "Ripper" wounds and by the medical opinion, it was a single throat cut no later than 12:56am, which effectively tosses the weak interruption premise, in and of itself.

I suppose some students must just like the notion of the fictional super scary guy with no skill and a fixed victims list, Mr Smoke and Mirrors....and the great thing is that they dont require anything in the form of evidence to support that position...just Bond and Macnaughten's and others guesses are good enough for them.

Since neither of those men solved any one of the murders we're talking about, and have no idea who did them, thats a leap of faith I see no reason to take.

Best regards

[Tom_Wescott]

They evidently didn't serve with H Division, then.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, the police had to know Newton's Law: it was neither rocket science nor closeted.

Sorry, Paul, but frankly your take on the knowledge required by Victorian policemen is way out of proportion. My dad and two uncles were serving 20th Century police officers with a combined service of more than 90 years - one was a constable, one an Inspector in the CID and the other a Chief Superintendent. While they were - and are - intelligent men, the only Law they needed to know was Her Majesty's Law of the Land. Physics and thermodynamics just don't enter into it.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'll have you know that the men of H Division were well-versed in rocket science, thank you very much. You think Edmund Reid flew balloons just to feel the wind in his hair? No, he was testing theories. Always testing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[paul emmett]

This leads me to believe that the fire must have been quite large and kept like that at least for an hour or two, so I definitely agree with Abberline here.

Hi, bolo.

When? How? We don't know anything about wood or coal being burned. All we know is that there were clothes burned. And MJK couldn't have been burning clothes, so it must have been the killer. And Cox(nor Hut) didn't see light in the room, so it must have been started after 3:00. And the larger and longer the fire, the smaller the time frame.

And then there's "why?"

Sam, the police had to know Newton's Law: it was neither rocket science nor closeted.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Paul,

Hi, Sam.

From what I hear Newton's law weren't rocket science...

Indeed, Newton's Law of Cooling certainly isn't rocket science, but there's no reason to suppose that Abberline had even heard of it, let alone used it. It's not as if he needed to be in any way precise about the temperature of the fire - Abberline observed that the spout had been melted off. That fact alone would be strong evidence to suggest a hot fire, without him getting out an abacus ("Abbocus"?) or slide-rule.