Let there be light!

[Abby Normal]

Do you, as an historian, consider it possible to try and find out who the witness was? What sources could be of any relevance, do you think?

no, no, no-

I asked first. was it prater or someone else, if not mary?
who do you think yelled oh murder?

im not interested in going any further with this unless you say who you think it was.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;375747][QUOTE=Pierre;375741][QUOTE=Elamarna;375693]

Pierre

a few points about the above post:

Please do not make statements about peoples education, about which you have no knowledge, and are wrong.

Steve,

a few point about the above post:

Please donīt make statements about peopleīs education, about which you have no knowledge, and are wrong:

"Not exactly the approach of an historian, is it?"

(Steve, # 303)

"you cannot as a good Scientist/Historian, just not mention it,"

(Steve, #298)

Worryingly there now appears to be an attitude that the views of some are not equal to the views of others on this forum, who are in their view better educated.

Yes. It is obvious that you have appointed yourself to be the judge for what views are objective and scientific and which are not:

"That is not Objective science.
That is not Good Science."

(Steve, # 302: thread: "An experiment")

The suggestion is that the view of an "Historian" cannot be disputed by those deemed to be "non-Historians" by the "Historian"; What Elitist nonsense!

Of course it can be seemingly disputed from other points of views. But when you are discussing history you are absolutely within the field of history with your discussion. That is no "elitist" view, it is a simple fact.

Of course you can play football in a church if you LIKE to. And you could kick around the bible on the floor instead of a football, sure. But would THE RULES of football be applicable? And of course you could hold a church mass in a football field, dressed in football clothes. But should it be called a church?

And you can could go to the dentist if you have a problem with a tooth, but would you like the dentist to use a fork?

And you go to a restaurant if you are hungry, but would you like the chef to cook your food using a vacuum cleaner?

And if you shall do an operation, I guess you do not want the surgeon to operate on you with a saw and a hammer?

And when you try to solve historical problems, can you do that with non-historical tools? NO.

Pierre

[DJA]

i tend to push that to time of death 3.-4am, same ball park, just hour out

assuming she ate with blotchy, digestion on her part took just a little longer,

steve

Agreed.

Bit hasty in my choice of sauces

2.5 to 3 hours is a rough time frame for 50% emptying of the stomach into the small intestine.

Pretty much takes time of death to around the cry of "murder".

If the mutilations took ~ 2 hours,perhaps he was the person leaving the court at 6.15am.

[Pierre]

i tend to push that to time of death 3.-4am, same ball park, just hour out

Why?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

no, no, no-

I asked first. was it prater or someone else, if not mary?
who do you think yelled oh murder?

im not interested in going any further with this unless you say who you think it was.

OK. Well, I have some alternatives. And Prater is not one of them.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;375786][QUOTE=Pierre;375742][QUOTE=John G;375692][QUOTE=Pierre;375685]

Frankly I am shocked and bewildered by this response. When I asked you before about your qualifications before you mentioned an MA in sociology, nothing about a history degree.

Relax. I have a Master of History too.

no responsible academic would reject modern source material. That is simply absurd and, on that basis, I have no other alternative but to draw obvious inferences.

I donīt reject secondary sources, I just protest against your uses of those in the JtR-case.

Regards, Pierre

[DJA]

Ribbit....

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

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

c.d.

Sorry for the delay in responding......because the exclamation was when she opened the door and saw who was standing there at near 4am...waking her. Thats why the voice was heard "as if from the court" and "as if at the door"...it was because the cry out was made while Marys door was open.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

The kitten, being disturbed by a noise downstairs did what kittens do, it came to its owner. The owner wakes, ...while Mary is getting out ofr bed and coming to open the door that was knocked, (or answer the door because the window was tapped), when she opens it she exclaims in exasperation...due to the fact that whoever was there woke her at near 4am.

The cry was faint to Prater, not to Lewis, and it came from the court, yet no-one claimed to be that voice. Even with all tyhe press...no-one claimed to be that caller. Lending itself nicely to the scenario that Mary herself made that cry.

You tend to believe what you want, it seems you do not take any direction from the circumstantial evidence, so Im not shocked you dont get the premise.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375797][QUOTE=John G;375786][QUOTE=Pierre;375742][QUOTE=John G;375692]

Relax. I have a Master of History too.



I donīt reject secondary sources, I just protest against your uses of those in the JtR-case.

Regards, Pierre

I have a law degree, but I'm not a lawyer! A Masters of History? I'm sure you do, although I don't believe you've mentioned this before. Perhaps you were just too modest. Nonetheless, that clearly doesn't, by itself, qualify you as an historian-I mean, I know someone who has a MA in information management, but he knows little about, say, librarianship- so I repeat my request, which you will no doubt have little difficulty complying with: please cite academic works, such as text books and peer reviewed articles that you have had published.

In the unlikely event that you are unable to respond to this request-as you have failed repeatedly to do in the past- I will, of course, draw reasonable inferences.

By the way, source material from, say, modern forensic experts does not equate to "secondary sources" and it's frankly bizarre to state such a thing. For instance, if Dr Bond states that it takes X amount of time for the gastric emptying of a meal of fish and chips, but modern sources, utilizing up to date research, contradicts this, it is ludicrous to suggest that Dr Bond's view should be given precedence on the basis that he is a "primary source"! And clearly no serious academic would ever state such a thing. Therefore, if you are stating such a thing, then I think a reasonable inference can be drawn from that to.

[David Orsam]

You tend to believe what you want, it seems you do not take any direction from the circumstantial evidence, so Im not shocked you dont get the premise.

I don't know what you mean when you say that I "tend to believe what I want". I'm simply looking at the evidence. The evidence was that a cry in the night was not uncommon. The evidence of a witness (Maxwell) was that she spoke to Mary in the morning. So it points in the direction of Mary being murdered after speaking to Maxwell. I don't know if that's what happened but to firmly believe the opposite seems to me to be perverse.

[Elamarna]

Pierre


I was not going to reply, but unfortunately I cannot let your accusations that I have attacked your education go unanswered


The statement

"Not exactly the approach of an historian, is it?"

was not made by me, it was part of post #302 by John G.

Please read the post correctly before making unfounded accusations!


The statements

"you cannot as a good Scientist/Historian, just not mention it,"

"That is not Objective science. That is not Good Science."


Are obviously not attacks on your education, that is very clear!

They are however comments which do ask questions of how knowledge is applied in the posts you make.
They are certainly asking questions on the choices and judgements made when posting.


You made it very clear to All on this forum in posts # 312 and 313, that you do not believe that some have any right to debate and disagree with you.

I have no intention whatsoever of getting into a mud slinging contest with you, others will judge if your comments are acceptable.

I wish you all the best

[packers stem]

Sorry for the delay in responding......because the exclamation was when she opened the door and saw who was standing there at near 4am...waking her. Thats why the voice was heard "as if from the court" and "as if at the door"...it was because the cry out was made while Marys door was open.

Hi Michael
Isn't the obvious that as Prater knew the shout of exclamation, and I agree with exclamation,came from outside it did actually come from outside as someone pulled back the coat to open the door?
If it was a shout from the bed,or elsewhere within the room Prater would have known it was from within the room.
When you live in an upstairs flat the difference between a voice in the flat below compared to outside is obvious even with the kind of soundproofing and double glazing we have today.
She would have heard the shout coming from the direction of her window to suggest it was outside

[Abby Normal]

Sorry for the delay in responding......because the exclamation was when she opened the door and saw who was standing there at near 4am...waking her. Thats why the voice was heard "as if from the court" and "as if at the door"...it was because the cry out was made while Marys door was open.

Possible. But I would think if that were the case she would have more time to scream out more and or struggle. I think the broken window would be enough to make it seem like it came from the court.

With the cuts to the corner of her bed sheet and possible defensive wounds point that she was attacked in bed, with the killer possibly putting the sheet over her face before cutting her throat, giving her just a small amount of time to cry out.

[Rosella]

Yes, I agree. I think he was actually IN the room when Mary was attacked, possibly in his shirtsleeves, and he knelt on the bed reaching across for the first knife thrust. I do believe she was in bed, perhaps dozing. These rooms in Millers Court were such hopeless hodgepodge of make-do shells, thin partition walls, broken windows, gaping bare floorboards, etc, that any call, scream, cry, would sound as if it came from nearby.