Let there be light!

[Joshua Rogan]

I've always been a little sceptical about the idea that the fire was lit purely to provide illumination for the killer's butchery. I like the occasional open fire, and they can briefly kick out quite a bit of light with the right fuel. But it's all low down, even the highest flames only reach to about knee height before disappearing up the chimney. So I find it hard to believe the flames would provide any illumination in the right place. In my attempts to recreate the scene (minus the dead body, of course) they actually created more shadow than light on top of the bed.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

What do you mean by "a proper report from Abberline"?

At the inquest he stated:

"I have taken an inventory of what was in the room, there had been a large fire so large as to melt the spout of the kettle..."

(original inquest papers in transcription by Evans & Skinner).

Regards, Pierre

Why not read the whole post and quote it rather than take out of context to attempt to score cheap points

I was responding to a question did I think Abberley may have asked Barnet about the previous condition of the kettle.

I responded we could not say there was no record of such.
I then spoke about proper reports.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;375235][QUOTE=Pierre;375234]

Hello Pierre,

How do you know it was the killer that chose the murder venues, i.e. Miller's Court?

Because his victim was found in 13 Miller´s Court. Do you mean to say that he, theoretically, could have been forced by some one or something to kill her there?

You use the word "choice". What is the theoretical meaning of it, in your use? Is it rational choice theory or a theory of preferences?

How do you know he wanted his victims to be discovered?

Because that is a common feature of his MO. The opposite would have been hiding the victims. He did not.

This implies a purposeful approach when it might have been merely incidental. Is this just a "feeling" that you have?

I do not use "feeling" for research. Only sources and source criticism. Do you think he killed other victims, which he was hiding away and which were never found? If you do, what are the sources indicating this?

After all, as you said yourself, we're totally lacking in any "definitive evidence."

So the evidence we produce is produced from the original sources. This is something we all have to live with. And this does NOT mean that any outlandish products will do. It means our task is difficult:

We must use sources indicating forensic evidence but we can not access the forensic evidence, just the sources. And the sources have tendencies, as all historical sources do. They are produced in historical contexts, they are remnants from the past.

The contexts of historical production are the contexts of yesterday´s history (history in the past) and we must start from the beginning, getting rid of our knowledge about history (getting rid of history in the past) before we can write a history based on the past for the future.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;375247]

Why not read the whole post and quote it rather than take out of context to attempt to score cheap points

That is the trick of certain others, which many have been forced to get used to here. I was only interested in the question of the "proper report", that is why.

I was responding to a question did I think Abberley may have asked Barnet about the previous condition of the kettle.

I responded we could not say there was no record of such.
I then spoke about proper reports.

But what do you mean by "a proper report" by Abberline?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Dear Pierre
I have seen the reply to my first post. I will reply to that later

However I have somesome further questions ?

A little research shows that the time for onset of Rigor Mortis is quoted variously as 2-3, 3-4 and 2-6 hours with full onset at around 12 hrs

This of course leave much open to debate so in looking at the hypothesis I will use the data in the sources used in that.
6hrs is given for onset of Rigor Mortis.. Bond reported that Rigor Mortis was present when he began the examination and that it continued to increase during the examination but gives us no idea how advanced it was.

To take 2pm and deduct 6 hours, supposed onset period, and say death was not possible after 8am is somewhat simplistic and misleading given there is no indication of the degree of Rigor Mortis given in the sources..

Bond begins his examination at 2.pm. Says Rigor Mortis present but increase during examination. Does not say becomes complete..

Full rigor is approx 12 hours. Warm room due to fire may speed this up.
If it is not fullly set at 2pm. A death time of 2am is improbably.

Let's do some basic maths

A = 2pm
B= degree of rigor. Not full. Still increasing during inspection. Less than 12 hour
X=tod.

A-b=x
X after 2pm

However the examination goes on until 4.
Bond states Rigor Mortis continues to increase during the examination. .

This on the data used in the hypothesis would shift TOD later in the morning

And some additional questions:


Where was witness. Inside or outside the room?

Are you sure the light from fire suffice to light body for witness to see what has been done?
This will mean the level of light given by the fire, the distance of witness from bed. And any shadows ..
The bed postioned has previously argued by yourself as the bed across the door. Head furthest from window and facing door.
This puts the face away from fire and in shadow along with the majority of injuries.

Where is killer. His postioned will affect light?


Was she there whole time?

Regards

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375234]

Hi Pierre,


[B]Hi Jeff,


Here is a mistake, I do not hypothesize two ladies. Only one. There is no evidence for two women: The two witnesses heard "a female voice shout loudly..." (statement of Sarah Lewis) and "screams of murder about two or threee times in a female voice." (statement of Prater). So both stated "a" female "voice", not two, and not "voices".


Thanks Jeff. I appreciate that. But not for me, for the past. I am just a simple historian.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

On the first point, thank you for correcting my misunderstanding.

On the second point I appreciated your formally putting down a timeline - I have rarely seen any like that. Whether it is historically accurate depends on how correct it is. You find it correct, but you created it.

Finally, again I request you don't use heightened darkened lettering in any responses to me - I do find them condescending and a bit arrogant. Regular lettering please.

Thanks again.

Jeff

[FrankO]

Because that is a common feature of his MO. The opposite would have been hiding the victims. He did not.

That he wanted his victims to be discovered is just one possibility, Pierre. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another possibility is that he just couldn’t care less that they would be found, just as long as he got to do as much as he could to his victims and then got away without being noticed.

What would have been the purpose of hiding his victims, anyway? If anything, it would only he have increased the risk of being captured.

All the best,
Frank

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375250]

That is the trick of certain others, which many have been forced to get used to here. I was only interested in the question of the "proper report", that is why.



But what do you mean by "a proper report" by Abberline?

Regards, Pierre

My friend
I have to disagree.
I do not do that to you.


Ok let's be clear.

I mean a full report of the investigation carried out at #13.; not the inquest report.
However such reports appear not to have either been made, unlikely or have not surived

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;375252]

Dear Pierre
I have seen the reply to my first post. I will reply to that later

However I have somesome further questions ?

Good.

A little research shows that the time for onset of Rigor Mortis is quoted variously as 2-3, 3-4 and 2-6 hours with full onset at around 12 hrs

This of course leave much open to debate so in looking at the hypothesis I will use the data in the sources used in that.

No, it doesn´t. And I will tell you why in a minute.

6hrs is given for onset of Rigor Mortis.. Bond reported that Rigor Mortis was present when he began the examination and that it continued to increase during the examination but gives us no idea how advanced it was.

Yes, I know. And there must, according to Bond, pass 6-12 hours before rigidity even sets in.

To take 2pm and deduct 6 hours, supposed onset period, and say death was not possible after 8am is somewhat simplistic and misleading given there is no indication of the degree of Rigor Mortis given in the sources.

According to Bond, there must pass at least 6 hours after death, before rigidity can set in.

Do you know why he sets the time to 6 hours at least?

And do you know why you are telling me "A little research shows that the time for onset of Rigor Mortis is quoted variously as 2-3, 3-4 and 2-6 hours with full onset at around 12 hrs".

That is - do you know why we have a difference between your statement and the statement of Dr Bond?

Your statement is from 2016 and the statement of Dr Bond is from 1888.

In 2016 research has methods of measurement for rigor mortis, methods of which Dr Bond had never heard.

So you are not an historian now, Steve. You are applying the knowledge of 2016 on the knowledge of 1888, the knowledge of science at its height (right now) on knowledge without science. That leads to an anachronistic analysis of a source from the past, which is 128 years old, when the world was entirely different.

You see, the degree of Rigor Mortis was very well put by Dr Bond. He had no machines, no instruments for testing, but he had something very valuable in 1888: Experience. And his experience did not give him any knowledge about the very low degree of rigor mortis, which is detected by measuring instruments 2016. That degree of rigor mortis was not detectable in 1888. So Dr Bond must wait until his senses could help him to detect rigor mortis. And he did this many, many times. So when Dr Bond said "rigidity", he meant "rigidity".

So I really prefer to go where his knowledge takes me instead of where knowledge from 2016 takes me, since the source is from 1888.


Bond begins his examination at 2.pm. Says Rigor Mortis present but increase during examination. Does not say becomes complete.

Full rigor is approx 12 hours. Warm room due to fire may speed this up.
If it is not fullly set at 2pm.

A death time of 2am is improbably.

So there is your own hypothesis!

Let's do some basic maths

A = 2pm
B= degree of rigor. Not full. Still increasing during inspection. Less than 12 hour
X=tod.

A-b=x
X after 2pm

You can´t put b into the formula since we do not know b!

However the examination goes on until 4.
Bond states Rigor Mortis continues to increase during the examination. .
This on the data used in the hypothesis would shift TOD later in the morning

B is not measurable.

And some additional questions:
Where was witness. Inside or outside the room?

Ask the sources: What did Sarah Lewis say, Steve?

Are you sure the light from fire suffice to light body for witness to see what has been done?

The killer had no other option.

This will mean the level of light given by the fire, the distance of witness from bed. And any shadows ..

This can throw light on why the fire was "large".

The bed postioned has previously argued by yourself as the bed across the door. Head furthest from window and facing door.
This puts the face away from fire and in shadow along with the majority of injuries.

Bits of the victim were in more places then one in the room. So then we should now start a discussion about: "How horrible" he wanted the murder site to be.

Where is killer. His postioned will affect light?

Well, THAT is a question we could always try and ask the sources!

Was she there whole time?

You mean the witness? Let´s see...trying such an hypothesis:

Killer together with witness in room. Killer murdering Kelly. Witness shouting "Oh, Murder!"? Killer goes on with the mutilations. Witness shouting nothing. Why? Or killer murdered Kelly, then started mutilations and witness went "Oh, Murder!" as they were performed.

And the whole time there would have been light.

But according to the witnesses the room was dark 1.30 and 03.00. So there is the problem of placing the killer in the room during the light time period again.

No, that is not a good hypothesis. So the witness must have entered the room after the murder when there was a possible light time period. The light must have been sufficient since there was the cry "Oh, Murder"?

Why did she enter the room? Who was she?

And another question: How did she get in? The door was locked.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;375255][QUOTE=Pierre;375234]

Hi Pierre,

On the first point, thank you for correcting my misunderstanding.

On the second point I appreciated your formally putting down a timeline - I have rarely seen any like that. Whether it is historically accurate depends on how correct it is. You find it correct, but you created it.

Finally, again I request you don't use heightened darkened lettering in any responses to me - I do find them condescending and a bit arrogant. Regular lettering please.

Thanks again.

Jeff

OK! I will try to remember to not use the bold letters. (Please correct me if I forget and do it again in future posts.)

Kind regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375249][QUOTE=John G;375235]

Because his victim was found in 13 Miller´s Court. Do you mean to say that he, theoretically, could have been forced by some one or something to kill her there?

You use the word "choice". What is the theoretical meaning of it, in your use? Is it rational choice theory or a theory of preferences?



Because that is a common feature of his MO. The opposite would have been hiding the victims. He did not.



I do not use "feeling" for research. Only sources and source criticism. Do you think he killed other victims, which he was hiding away and which were never found? If you do, what are the sources indicating this?



So the evidence we produce is produced from the original sources. This is something we all have to live with. And this does NOT mean that any outlandish products will do. It means our task is difficult:

We must use sources indicating forensic evidence but we can not access the forensic evidence, just the sources. And the sources have tendencies, as all historical sources do. They are produced in historical contexts, they are remnants from the past.

The contexts of historical production are the contexts of yesterday´s history (history in the past) and we must start from the beginning, getting rid of our knowledge about history (getting rid of history in the past) before we can write a history based on the past for the future.

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

I'm somewhat confused by this reply. Thus, the murder sites may have been "chosen" by the victims, not the killer. For instance, if his victims were soliciting it's natural that they would escort the client to a relatively seculded or darkened area that they'd probably used before (Eddowes was killed in the darkest part of Mitre Square, for instance, and Stride in Dutfield's Yard, which was cloaked in near pitch black darkness) And, of course, Kelly had a suitable room that she could invite clients back to.

Therefore, in this respect, the victims may have inadvertently contributed to their own demise, and the killer would have had no necessity to select murder venues.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=FrankO;375269]

That he wanted his victims to be discovered is just one possibility, Pierre. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hi Frank,

It is also a well established fact that his victims were discovered quickly after the murders.

Another possibility is that he just couldn’t care less that they would be found, just as long as he got to do as much as he could to his victims and then got away without being noticed.

Sure. But wanting to do as much as he could, why in busy places where the risk of discovery was high? That has always been the understanding of Berner Street, for example. "He was interrupted". Why on the street? Why not always indoors?

What would have been the purpose of hiding his victims, anyway? If anything, it would only he have increased the risk of being captured.

All the best,
Frank

And still, that is what most serial killers do. They think that by hiding the victims they will avoid discovery and thereby capture.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

That is - do you know why we have a difference between your statement and the statement of Dr Bond?

Your statement is from 2016 and the statement of Dr Bond is from 1888.

In 2016 research has methods of measurement for rigor mortis, methods of which Dr Bond had never heard.

So you are not an historian now, Steve. You are applying the knowledge of 2016 on the knowledge of 1888, the knowledge of science at its height (right now) on knowledge without science. That leads to an anachronistic analysis of a source from the past, which is 128 years old, when the world was entirely different.

You see, the degree of Rigor Mortis was very well put by Dr Bond. He had no machines, no instruments for testing, but he had something very valuable in 1888: Experience. And his experience did not give him any knowledge about the very low degree of rigor mortis, which is detected by measuring instruments 2016. That degree of rigor mortis was not detectable in 1888. So Dr Bond must wait until his senses could help him to detect rigor mortis. And he did this many, many times. So when Dr Bond said "rigidity", he meant "rigidity".

So I really prefer to go where his knowledge takes me instead of where knowledge from 2016 takes me, since the source is from 1888.
[/B]

Oh my goodness, I am literally shocked by this Pierre. Do you not see where you have gone wrong?

What Dr Bond thought (wrongly) about the time of death in 1888 is only relevant to the issue of what would have happened if a trial of a suspect had taken place in 1888.

Perhaps an innocent person would have been convicted.

But if we are trying to get to the truth we can't possibly give credence to what Dr Bond said about the time of death.

If we are trying to determine today in 2016 what time Kelly was murdered then we need to use knowledge from 2016

[David Orsam]

Hello Pierre,

As I keep noting, there are no reliable indicators for determining time of death, which is why the Forensic Science Regulator advises that pathologists shouldn't even attempt to do so.

Absolutely, and to add insult to injury Pierre ignores the fact that Dr Bond said that time of death was 1am or 2am and decides to include only the second of the two times in his chronology, no doubt because 1am doesn't fit with MJK being heard singing after that time. So he basically changes the doctor's evidence to fit his timeline, showing that he has, what he would call, "a tendency".

To add further insult to injury, he then includes a quite arbitrary cut off point of 8am, based on a premise which is now known to be false, after which time he says MJK couldn't have been murdered. No doubt he is very pleased with himself at "proving" Mrs Maxwell's evidence to be false but it's a joke.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;375287][QUOTE=Pierre;375249]

Hello Pierre,

I'm somewhat confused by this reply. Thus, the murder sites may have been "chosen" by the victims, not the killer. For instance, if his victims were soliciting it's natural that they would escort the client to a relatively seculded or darkened area that they'd probably used before (Eddowes was killed in the darkest part of Mitre Square, for instance, and Stride in Dutfield's Yard, which was cloaked in near pitch black darkness) And, of course, Kelly had a suitable room that she could invite clients back to.

Therefore, in this respect, the victims may have inadvertently contributed to their own demise, and the killer would have had no necessity to select murder venues.

Yes. But there is historical evidence he did select the date for the murder. So he must have known that there was a possibility to kill on that date on Dorset Street.

This is the letter he sent to the Yarmouth Police:


"14, Dorset Street, Spitalfields, London

Look out for him on Thursday night at either of the Piers, where he intends to do for two Norwich women, before closing time. So distinguish yourselves better than the London coppers. Jack the Ripper."


So he was sitting at one of the pubs (they had the names of the piers: Britannia and Wellington), intending to kill two women before the closing time of the streets.

The police closed the streets for Lord Mayor´s Show. He gave the police a chance to come and wait just opposite the entrance of Miller´s Court, where he would kill two women. Prater barricaded her door with two tables so she survived.

It is a shame the letter is lost, isn´t it?

But two newspapers had it before he killed Kelly.

He had a little problem on the night of the double event, hadn´t he? So he figured indoors would be better for a double event next time.

History is written by using source criticism and coherence. It does not present itself as a fact. Facts are established by the historian.

Regards, Pierre