Oh, murder!

[David Orsam]

You are not an historian David and therefore you do not write historical texts.

But I do think you should conctact Walt Disney. They sure need people like you.

Oh my dear boy, what an absolutely charming put down and one which has so much credibility coming from a distinguished academic historian like yourself.

[Pierre]

Has it ever occurred to you, Michael, that the cat walking past and waking Prater might have had nothing to do with the subsequent cry of murder, i.e. no more than coincidence of timing?

It is much harder to connect the cat to the scream than it is to connect the scream to the murder.

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, what an absolutely charming example but it doesn't work because a tiger is an animal and if the premise is that I eat animals then it's perfectly possible that I eat tigers, indeed they are rather tasty in a stew.

Let me put it another way for you my dear boy, if you are told that animals have escaped from the zoo then it's possible that the tigers are free isn't it?

You are not an historian David and therefore you do not write historical texts.

But I do think you should conctact Walt Disney. They sure need people like you.

[David Orsam]

I'm satisfied with a scenario that has... Mary padded sleepily and hungover to the door and wasn't thrilled to see anyone who knocked her up at almost 4am.

Are you actually saying with a straight face that Mary was so annoyed at being woken up in the early hours that she screamed, or shouted "loudly" (per Lewis), the word "Murder" and then, by chance, was in fact murdered a little bit later? And you are somehow "satisfied" that this is what happened?

[David Orsam]

I'm satisfied with a scenario that has Mary being woken by a tap, Diddles being woken as well

Has it ever occurred to you, Michael, that the cat walking past and waking Prater might have had nothing to do with the subsequent cry of murder, i.e. no more than coincidence of timing?

[David Orsam]

Because the operationalization is wrong. Here is an example with the same principle:

You eat animals.

But you do not eat tigers.

Oh my dear boy, what an absolutely charming example but it doesn't work because a tiger is an animal and if the premise is that I eat animals then it's perfectly possible that I eat tigers, indeed they are rather tasty in a stew.

Let me put it another way for you my dear boy, if you are told that animals have escaped from the zoo then it's possible that the tigers are free isn't it?

[John G]

I believe John that there is no indication of forced entry, and there is indication that the "oh-murder" call emanated from Mary herself, and since there was no additional noises, it seems reasonable to speculate that Mary answered a knock or tap, made her exclamation of dismay, and allowed the visitor access. The problem with the assumption that he snuck in is that in that small space Mary would surely hear the door open, or the window. Add to that the fact that many people are unsure of whether the door was an inswing right or left, in the latter, there would at least be some protection from the lamp directly opposite Marys room.

I'm satisfied with a scenario that has Mary being woken by a tap, Diddles being woken as well, and that Mary padded sleepily and hungover to the door and wasn't thrilled to see anyone who knocked her up at almost 4am.

But according to Dr Phillips she was murdered in her bed whilst dressed in a nightdress. It's therefore reasonable to postulate that she had retired for the night and was asleep when attacked. Her murderer could have observed her in this vulnerable state via the window and then accessed the room by lifting the door latch via the open window.

[John G]

I suppose the salient question is: where the ladies of Whitechapel prone to histrionics?

[Pierre]

Why not my dear boy? Why not?

"Scream of murder"

I can't help feeling a clue may be in the first word of the three.

Because the operationalization is wrong. Here is an example with the same principle:

You eat animals.

But you do not eat tigers.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

It seems to me David that you very often favour specific press reports over the Inquest transcripts, and my point was that there is less "imagination" in those Inquest documents. I believe that when people are interviewed informally they tend to add bits of data that isn't present when they state their recollections in front of authorities.

It seems to me Michael that you haven't answered any of my questions at all.

Can I make it clear that I have no idea what you are talking about.

What specific press reports do you think I am favouring over the "Inquest transcripts"? And what informal interview, or interviews, are you referring to?

[Michael W Richards]

This is very muddled Michael.

Could you explain what you mean by "the street interview copy" which you claim that I seem to prefer?

What interview and what street are you referring to?

When you refer to an "embellishment" could you explain who you are saying adding the embellishment?

And, finally, what do you mean when you say that "press interviews are the ones that have added details that do not appear in the courtroom in front of a jury". What press interviews are you referring to in this context?

It seems to me David that you very often favour specific press reports over the Inquest transcripts, and my point was that there is less "imagination" in those Inquest documents. I believe that when people are interviewed informally they tend to add bits of data that isn't present when they state their recollections in front of authorities.

[Michael W Richards]

Did she let someone into her room? The evidence may suggest otherwise.

I believe John that there is no indication of forced entry, and there is indication that the "oh-murder" call emanated from Mary herself, and since there was no additional noises, it seems reasonable to speculate that Mary answered a knock or tap, made her exclamation of dismay, and allowed the visitor access. The problem with the assumption that he snuck in is that in that small space Mary would surely hear the door open, or the window. Add to that the fact that many people are unsure of whether the door was an inswing right or left, in the latter, there would at least be some protection from the lamp directly opposite Marys room.

I'm satisfied with a scenario that has Mary being woken by a tap, Diddles being woken as well, and that Mary padded sleepily and hungover to the door and wasn't thrilled to see anyone who knocked her up at almost 4am.

[Michael W Richards]

QUOTE=Michael W Richards;413142



Hi Michael,

What do you think the reason for asking that question was?

Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I think that since she had imparted information regarding what she heard after the scream, the question was asked for the benefit of the jury.

[David Orsam]

That is not the problem discussed in this thread and not the problem you wanted to give evidence for, again.

Oh my dear boy, how delightfully non-committal, one might even say, how beautifully evasive, of you.

Of course, I never expect any answers to my questions my dear charming boy but I do so like to ask.

[David Orsam]

But a scream is not a scream of murder.

Why not my dear boy? Why not?

"Scream of murder"

I can't help feeling a clue may be in the first word of the three.