Oh, murder!

[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.

[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]

QUOTE=Michael W Richards;413279

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.

Yes, I agree.

And since she did not hear beds or tables being pulled about they would have been pulled about when she was sleeping, i.e. before the cry of murder, if they were.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

And since she did not hear beds or tables being pulled about they would have been pulled about when she was sleeping, i.e. before the cry of murder, if they were.

Or, my dear boy, they could have been pulled about after Prater went to sleep again or after she left to go to the Ten Bells or after she came back and went to sleep again.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Bingo.
And if blotchy didn't kill her. This is probably how her killer did it.

[Wickerman]

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.

Ok John, then why is it unreasonable to postulate she was murdered by a client?
Tell me, what do you see that indicates this did not happen.

[John G]

Ok John, then why is it unreasonable to postulate she was murdered by a client?
Tell me, what do you see that indicates this did not happen.

Hi Wickerman,

It's possible she was murdered by a client, although that wouldn't, of course, exclude JtR. However, why would someone who had been with Kelly earlier in the evening, if that's what you're suggesting, elect to strike whilst she was asleep? Thus, in the case of JtR, I think it unlikely that he would have restrained himself to such an extent in these circumstances- he would most likely have struck earlier. And in the case of an alternative perpetrator, what would have prompted such a violent assault?

[Pierre]

Or, my dear boy, they could have been pulled about after Prater went to sleep again or after she left to go to the Ten Bells or after she came back and went to sleep again.

No, David. That will not do at all.

"Could have" from a non historian in a forum in 2017.

What we have here is a source from the time of the murder.

In the source, the person who examined the dead body made statements.

He saw the body. He touched it. He was a physician.

You were not there.

You did not see it.

You did not examine the dead body.

You did not produce the source from the past.

And when you see the source, you do not use source criticism.

"Could have" is worth 0. Zero. Zip. Nothing.

Your dear boy understands this. You do not.

And BTW, "could have" is in this case a total relativistic statement within the postmodern paradigm compared to my own position, which is a fundamentalistic position.

[John G]

No, David. That will not do at all.

"Could have" from a non historian in a forum in 2017.

What we have here is a source from the time of the murder.

In the source, the person who examined the dead body made statements.

He saw the body. He touched it. He was a physician.

You were not there.

You did not see it.

You did not examine the dead body.

You did not produce the source from the past.

And when you see the source, you do not use source criticism.

"Could have" is worth 0. Zero. Zip. Nothing.

Your dear boy understands this. You do not.

And BTW, "could have" is in this case a total relativistic statement within the postmodern paradigm compared to my own position, which is a fundamentalistic position.

What is the relevance of your "non-historian" comment? For instance, MJ Trow is a published historian, which I assume you're not, however he made a number of errors in his book on the Torso murders, as well written as the book was.

[David Orsam]

No, David. That will not do at all.

"Could have" from a non historian in a forum in 2017.

Oh my dear boy, how charming of you to tell me what I can and cannot write, or what will or will not do. But I'm afraid to tell you, because you are so charming, that any historian worth his or her salt will use the expression "could have", it's perfectly normal, but I fully appreciate that you are not one so have difficulty understanding.

I see that you wrote "And since she did not hear beds or tables being pulled about they would have been pulled about when she was sleeping..."

Is there any material difference between "would have" and "could have"?

Put it this way, my dear boy, tell me why the bed and table could not have been pulled around after Prater went back to sleep or after she left for the Ten Bells or after she returned from the Ten Bells and went back to sleep?

[Abby Normal]

No, David. That will not do at all.

"Could have" from a non historian in a forum in 2017.

What we have here is a source from the time of the murder.

In the source, the person who examined the dead body made statements.

He saw the body. He touched it. He was a physician.

You were not there.

You did not see it.

You did not examine the dead body.

You did not produce the source from the past.

And when you see the source, you do not use source criticism.

"Could have" is worth 0. Zero. Zip. Nothing.

Your dear boy understands this. You do not.

And BTW, "could have" is in this case a total relativistic statement within the postmodern paradigm compared to my own position, which is a fundamentalistic position.

Lol. Your whole premise is that someone could have moved furniture about, yet there is not even any evidence for it.

[David Orsam]

What is the relevance of your "non-historian" comment? For instance, MJ Trow is a published historian, which I assume you're not, however he made a number of errors in his book on the Torso murders.

I've tried to extract from Pierre a list of "approved" historians but he wouldn't tell me. One thing he has told us, however, is that Philip Sugden IS a historian.

A quick search of Sugden's book 'The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" reveals the use of the phrase "could have" seventy-two times, some of them in quotations but most of them written by Sudgen himself.

So Pierre must have got it all wrong about how historians write. But it's understandable, with him not being a historian himself.

[John G]

I've tried to extract from Pierre a list of "approved" historians but he wouldn't tell me. One thing he has told us, however, is that Philip Sugden IS a historian.

A quick search of Sugden's book 'The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" reveals the use of the phrase "could have" seventy-two times, some of them in quotations but most of them written by Sudgen himself.

So Pierre must have got it all wrong about how historians write. But it's understandable, with him not being a historian himself.

Of course, even Philip Sugden wasn't infallible. For instance, he asserted that Dr Phillips believed Chapman and Eddowes were not killed by the same person whilst, in actual fact, the reference he cites reveals that the good doctor was referring to Stride and Eddowes.

[David Orsam]

Lol. Your whole premise is that someone could have moved furniture about, yet there is not even any evidence for it.

The interesting thing here, Abby, is that Pierre based his premise on the word "if". Thus:

"And since she did not hear beds or tables being pulled about they would have been pulled about when she was sleeping, i.e. before the cry of murder, if they were."

Yet whenever I use the word "if" I'm told by him that it's not allowed. It's clearly one rule for these academic non-historians and another rule for the rest of us.

[Abby Normal]

Of course, even Philip Sugden wasn't infallible. For instance, he asserted that Dr Phillips believed Chapman and Eddowes were not killed by the same person whilst, in actual fact, the reference he cites reveals that the good doctor was referring to Stride and Eddowes.

I would think that was a simple typo like mistake. Sugdan is by far the greatest ripper writer and researcher combo IMHO. Not only did he write one of the most accurate, unbiased and concise history but it also included major new insights due to his research, like discovering ostrog was in Paris jail and could finally be taken off the list.