Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

Sorry to hear this, David, because that is the only set of relevant methods we have at our disposal in the case of Jack the Ripper, since the case is entirely built on sources from the past. Since you fail to understand the relevance of these methods - as source criticism has no meaning for you- you also fail to understand the case.

But all this "source criticism" doesn't seem to be working very well for you Pierre does it? Every theory you put forward on this forum seems to fall apart instantly upon the merest scrutiny.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375509]

You're making my point perfectly for me Pierre. Prater might have been mistaken as to time. Just like Cox might have been mistaken as to the time.

No historical news and I already did tell you this. The sources are what we have. I am not here to "make points". I go where the sources take me.

So perhaps she didn't hear Mary singing at 1am. Perhaps Mary was dead at that time. Therefore, Dr Bond might have been absolutely correct when he said that Mary was murdered at 1am.

"Perhaps" is not an historical concept. "Perhaps it was Friday yesterday". No. We have to make a decision and argue for or against it. And sorry, David, but there are 60 minutes in an hour. That has not changed since 1888.

Which is why it was completely wrong of you to change Dr Bond's estimate of death from 1am or 2am to only 2am on the basis that dead people don't sing.

I don´t change estimates. I interpret sources using source criticism. But as you have told me yourself today, source criticism is meaningless to you.
Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

We have to make a decision and argue for or against it.

No, this is my whole point Pierre. You were NOT entitled to make a decision as to whether Dr Bond was right or wrong about the murder having been committed at 1am in circumstances where you were providing a chronological timeline of events, at least not without indicating that you had done so.

By giving your timeline which said that Dr Bond estimated time of death as 2am that was a false representation of Dr Bond's opinion because he said it could have been 1am or 2am.

You told me you discarded the 1am element of his opinion because dead people don't sing. Now you seem to be agreeing with me that perhaps Mary Jane wasn't singing at 1am after all. That being so, your timeline should have reflected the opinion of Dr Bond accurately.

[David Orsam]

Before either of you can assume a TOD before 3:45am, you need to explain why the cry out at that time was NOT Mary Kelly. Using Bonds Rigor estimate as a fixed point isnt practical or logical based on that data.

I don't need to explain why the cry at 3.45 was not Mary Kelly because I have drawn attention to the clear evidence that a cry of murder was not uncommon in that area during the night. Bearing that evidence in mind, you need to explain why that cry at 3.45 WAS Mary Kelly.

And, for your information, I'm not assuming a TOD before 3:45; my questioning of Pierre in this thread has been directed solely at whether a TOD at 1am was a physical impossibility.

[John G]

Yes, so no point in trying. Better to perform traditional historical source criticism comparing other sources to the source with the statements of Dr Bond.

What one could do though, is to try and estimate the highest possible temperature in the room in Miller´s Court and from this draw a conclusion about the time of the onset of rigor mortis. The morning of 9 November was rather cold, and so was the night, just a few degrees. And if one could find a 1888 definition of rigor mortis as well as a time frame for the development of it correlated to different room temperatures, one could estimate some sort of mean value from an hypothesis of the fire burning x hours for the time of the onset of rigor mortis. We would also need data for x (fire in grates) > y (temperatures in small rooms). These estimations could not be used in support of or against Dr Bond, though. We would only get our own hypothesis.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Firstly, you refer to the temperature bring cold on 9 November. I agree, but this needs to balanced against the heat from what might have been a roaring fire.

Secondly, I don't understand what you mean by "1888 definition of rigor mortis." Thus, rigor mortis is either accurately defined, or it isn't. That is a logical certainly, so therefore the date is completely irrelevant.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't need to explain why the cry at 3.45 was not Mary Kelly because I have drawn attention to the clear evidence that a cry of murder was not uncommon in that area during the night. Bearing that evidence in mind, you need to explain why that cry at 3.45 WAS Mary Kelly.

And, for your information, I'm not assuming a TOD before 3:45; my questioning of Pierre in this thread has been directed solely at whether a TOD at 1am was a physical impossibility.

No, a cry of murder wasnt uncommon...and in the majority of cases it was used as an exclamation rather than a call for help. There is not one reason in existence why Mary Kelly couldnt have been the source of that cry, and the fact that she is the only one that could not claim the call out makes it quite possible that it wasnt claimed because the murder victim herself that made that call out. It was preceded by a noise that startled a cat upstairs to wake the owner in time to hear the cry out. The evidence suggests that there was no forced entry into the room, nor was there any verbal resistance to an entry that was heard by someone who could hear when Mary moved about downstairs.

The evidence supports an access that was granted. So, you have Blotchy, or later on, the killer.

The use of the phrase and the fact that waking Mary would likely create an exclamation that fits with that common usage, is what I based my supposition that Mary answered a knock on the window or door...that woke Diddles, and she answered the door and made the exclamation before allowing the visitor entry. Thats why the call was heard by another person in the court and a person within #26.

Almost all the evidence in this case points to a killer known to the victim.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

Firstly, you refer to the temperature bring cold on 9 November. I agree, but this needs to balanced against the heat from what might have been a roaring fire.

Secondly, I don't understand what you mean by "1888 definition of rigor mortis." Thus, rigor mortis is either accurately defined, or it isn't. That is a logical certainly, so therefore the date is completely irrelevant.

And you were the one who spoke about an ancient definition of the earth, weren´t you? So the earth is either accurately defined, or it isn´t?

And now you are saying that knowledge does not change over time?

Logic is a part of philosophy. Do you mean that they used logic to construct knowledge about rigor mortis in 1888?

Kind regards, Pierre

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Why would she make the exclamation BEFORE allowing the visitor entry? Are you saying that she sensed immediate danger?

c.d.

[John G]

And you were the one who spoke about an ancient definition of the earth, weren´t you? So the earth is either accurately defined, or it isn´t?

And now you are saying that knowledge does not change over time?

Logic is a part of philosophy. Do you mean that they used logic to construct knowledge about rigor mortis in 1888?

Kind regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

No, what I'm saying is that scientific facts don't change over time. Thus, the world has always been spherical, even at a time when the ancients believed it to be flat. Equally, rigor mortis has the same definition today as it did in 1888, so by implying otherwise you fell into error.

[David Orsam]

It was preceded by a noise that startled a cat upstairs to wake the owner in time to hear the cry out.

I must apologise Michael. I hadn't realised that the kitten had testified at the inquest to having been "startled" by a noise. Now that you tell me that the cat did give such evidence it does make me pause for thought.

However, when I consider the evidence of the cat's owner, there seems to be some conflict. In her statement, Prater said she was woken up by her kitten "walking across her neck" (note "walking", so it didn't appear to be startled). According to the report of her inquest testimony in the Evening Post, she said that: "Her kitten, "Little tiddles," disturbed her about half-past three or four o’clock. Just as she turned the kitten off the bed and turned round to go to sleep again she heard, in a faintish voice, "Oh, murder!" and it seemed to proceed from the court, and near where she was living. Being accustomed to hear such noise she took no notice" .

So it seems to me that there was a gap between her being woken up by the kitten, when there was silence, and her then hearing the faint cry which was nothing unusual in that area.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375531]No, this is my whole point Pierre.

You were NOT entitled to make a decision as to whether Dr Bond was right or wrong about the murder having been committed at 1am in circumstances where you were providing a chronological timeline of events, at least not without indicating that you had done so.

Yes, David. Historians are entitled to interpret sources. Very much so.

By giving your timeline which said that Dr Bond estimated time of death as 2am that was a false representation of Dr Bond's opinion because he said it could have been 1am or 2am.

No, David. It is one of two points in time given by Dr Bond, with the word "OR" in between. And since there is a witness hearing Kelly singing at about one o´clock, she must have been alive at about one o´clock. And that might be the very simple reason why the word "OR" occurs in the Bond-source.

You told me you discarded the 1am element of his opinion because dead people don't sing. Now you seem to be agreeing with me that perhaps Mary Jane wasn't singing at 1am after all. That being so, your timeline should have reflected the opinion of Dr Bond accurately.

"Seem"? Simply ask me if you want to know! This is my answer:

There are two sources (2) saying that Kelly was singing at "about one o´clock". Be very careful to note the word "about", David. These two sources contain the statements of Cox at two different occasions (police investigation and inquest).

Then there is ONE source (inquest) giving the statement of Prater that she did not hear any singing "at" one o´clock. Be very careful also to note the word "at", David.

Finally, there is another source (police investigation) where Prater does not even talk about singing as an issue at all. But in this source, she claims to having been not in her room and not in the house where this room is situated, but outside of this house until 1.30. During the time when she was outside the house, she spoke to McCarthy.

So you have 1+1 source saying the same thing for the time (same witness): "about one o´clock".

And you have 1 source saying different things from 1 other source (same witness): "at one o´clock".

Two sources high up in the hierarchy of sources saying the same thing can not be ignored.

When they are compared to the other source stating a point in time, it is clear that there is a difference which has explanatory power: "about one o´clock" is not the same thing as "at one o´clock".

So there is obviously a small difference. This small difference must be taken into consideration when you explain why Prater did not hear singing.

And the next explanatory factor is the talking with McCarthy:

People who talk to people tend to listen less attentively to other sounds going on in the background than people who are not talking to someone and instead listen to hear sounds.

This is my interpretation of the sources. Show me a better one, and I will surely change my interpretation.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

But all this "source criticism" doesn't seem to be working very well for you Pierre does it? Every theory you put forward on this forum seems to fall apart instantly upon the merest scrutiny.

That is my destiny, David, since everyone is afraid of what they might hear in the future.

So everything I say must be disputed from the beginning.

Otherwise the small field of ripperology may be destroyed.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

That is a non sequitur Pierre. Do you know what that means?

The fact that he did not perform such calculations does not in any way mean that we can't answer to the question as to whether it was possible for him to have done so.

The Greeks could have invented the steam machine in ancient times already. They did not.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375535]I don't need to explain why the cry at 3.45 was not Mary Kelly because I have drawn attention to the clear evidence that a cry of murder was not uncommon in that area during the night. Bearing that evidence in mind,

you need to explain why that cry at 3.45 WAS Mary Kelly.

What do you mean, David?

[David Orsam]

Yes, David. Historians are entitled to interpret sources. Very much so.

As usual, you respond to a completely different point to the one I was actually making. I never said you could not interpret sources.

To remind you, I said:

"You were NOT entitled to make a decision as to whether Dr Bond was right or wrong about the murder having been committed at 1am in circumstances where you were providing a chronological timeline of events, at least not without indicating that you had done so."

You've entirely ignored the part that I have highlighted in bold. Yes, if you like, you can disagree with Dr Bond and say he must have been wrong about 1am but, in circumstances where you were setting out a timeline of events, you were not entitled to change his conclusions, at least not without making it clear you had done so.