Let there be light!

[Pierre]

Hi everyone,

Today I have analysed the sources from the police investigation 9 november, Dr Bonds letter from 10 November and the inquest sources from 12 November - all primary sources - to find a solution for the fire in the grate in 13 Miller´s Court on 9 November.

The questions I have been working with are

”Why did the murderer light a large fire in the grate?”

but firstly:

”Which possible time frames existed for the large fire in the grate?”.

Here are the results, following a timeline for the events based on the witness statements:

00.00-01.00/01.30 Cox seing Kelly go into her room, Cox hearing Kelly singing.
01.30 Prater going upstairs, seeing no light in Kelly´s room
02.00 TOD (time of death) according to Dr Bond
03.00 Cox seeing that the light was out in Kelly´s room
03.30-04.00 Sarah Lewis and Prater hearing the scream ”Oh, Murder!” (Prater stating she heard it two or three times on 9 November, 1 time on 12 November)
05.00-05.45 Prater going to The Ten Bells, drinking there
08.00 Last possible TOD according to the time frame given by Dr Bond
08.00-08.45 Mrs Maxwell claiming to have seen Kelly on the street

First analyse question: Which time periods during the night and morning 9 November can be classified as dark time periods and possible light periods?

00.00-01.00/01.30 Cox seing Kelly go into her room, Cox hearing Kelly singing.

Dark time period 1: 01.30-03.00:

01.30 Prater going upstairs, seeing no light in Kelly´s room
03.00 Cox seeing that the light was out in Kelly´s room

Possible light time period 1:

03.30-04.00 Lewis and Prater hearing the scream ”Oh, Murder!” (Prater stating she heard it two or three times on 9 November, 1 time on 12 November)

Dark time period 2:

05.00-05.45 Prater going to The Ten Bells (not stating a word about light or darkness)

Possible light time period 2:

06.30/07.00-08.00 Prater returned
08.00 Last possible TOD (time of death) according to the time frame given by Dr Bond
08.00-08.45 Mrs Maxwell claiming to have seen Kelly on the street

Second analyse question: Is there any evidence in the time frame that supports Dr Bonds estimate?

Dr Bond states that the TOD should be set to 02.00, The time frame for rigor mortis is 6-12 hours after the murder. The last point in time when the murder could have been committed is therefore 08.00. TOD after 08.00 is not possible. Maxwells statment is therefore wrong.

The first dark time period, Dark time period 1, is 01.30-03.00. This period covers Dr Bonds estimate.

When is the first Possible light time period, making it possible for the killer to light a large fire in the grate?

It is not in the first dark time period 1 01.30-03.00. And yet, this is the time period in which Dr Bond places the TOD: at 02.00.

So the first Possible light time period, making it possible for the killer to light a large fire in the grate, is the Possible light time period 1: 03.30-04.00.

The hypothesis must therefore be, if Dr Bond was right, that this is the time period when the killer lit the large fire in the grate.

But this time period contains an event:

The cry of ”Oh, Murder!” was heard by two witnesses after Dark time period 1, in the Possible light time period 1: at 03.30-04.00.

The time line must therefore be, considering Dr Bond to be correct in his estimate, as follows:

02.00- 03.30: The murder and mutilations.

03.30: The lighting of the large fire in the grate

03.30-04.00: The scream(s) ”Oh, Murder!”


But what about the other Possible light time period 2?

06.30/07.00-08.00 Prater returned

Problems with the other light time period:

Problem 1) 07.07 Sunrise started.
Problem 2) Dr Bonds statement of TOD is 02.00 in the night.

The second time period must be excluded and the first Possible light time period must be hypothesized as being the correct time period for the large fire in the grate.

So why did the killer light a large fire in the grate? Did he do it to ”see better”, thereby taking the risk of being seen himself?

Let´s look at the time period again:

Considering Dr Bond to be correct in his estimate, the time line is as follows:

02.00- 03.30: The murder and mutilations.

03.30: The lighting of the large fire in the grate

03.30-04.00: The scream(s) ”Oh, Murder!”

So why did the killer first murder and mutilate his victim, and light the fire after the murder?

The answer is to be seen in the witness statements for the scream(s) ”Oh, Murder”!

The killer had lit a large fire to see better. But not for himself. He was used to working in dark places.

He had lit the large fire in the grate for his witness. So that she would see better what he had done.

Now, the next question must be: Who was the witness he wanted to enlighten?

Both Sarah Lewis and Elizabeth Prater heard her.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

before even attempting to look at this seemingly new idea:

What do you mean exactly by "Dark Time Period" and "Light Time Period"

steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

before even attempting to look at this seemingly new idea:

What do you mean exactly by "Dark Time Period" and "Light Time Period"

steve

Hi Steve,

Good, I should have written the explanation. Thanks.

"Dark time period" for "it was dark in Kelly´s room".

"Possible light time period" for "it might have been a fire in the grate in Kelly´s room".

Time periods estimated from witness statements (primary sources only) for what happened during the hours on 9 November.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I appreciate that Inspector Abberline said of the fire that "I presume [it] was for the purpose of light as there was only one piece of candle in the room".

But this was a presumption of the inspector no doubt based on a belief that the murder was committed during the hours of darkness.

What amazes me about Pierre's post is that he doesn't even consider the fact that the primary purpose of a fire is: heat.

A secondary purpose of a fire can be: to burn stuff.

Another secondary purpose is, of course, light but how is it possible to discuss the purpose of the fire without at least mentioning the above?

[David Orsam]

02.00 TOD (time of death) according to Dr Bond

How has Dr Bond's conclusion that "one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder" become "02.00 TOD (time of death) according to Dr Bond"?

[Pierre]

How has Dr Bond's conclusion that "one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder" become "02.00 TOD (time of death) according to Dr Bond"?

Dead people don´t sing.

Pierre

[GUT]

I appreciate that Inspector Abberline said of the fire that "I presume [it] was for the purpose of light as there was only one piece of candle in the room".

But this was a presumption of the inspector no doubt based on a belief that the murder was committed during the hours of darkness.

What amazes me about Pierre's post is that he doesn't even consider the fact that the primary purpose of a fire is: heat.

A secondary purpose of a fire can be: to burn stuff.

Another secondary purpose is, of course, light but how is it possible to discuss the purpose of the fire without at least mentioning the above?

Thanks David, saved me the time.

[Pierre]

I appreciate that Inspector Abberline said of the fire that "I presume [it] was for the purpose of light as there was only one piece of candle in the room".

But this was a presumption of the inspector no doubt based on a belief that the murder was committed during the hours of darkness.

What amazes me about Pierre's post is that he doesn't even consider the fact that the primary purpose of a fire is: heat.

A secondary purpose of a fire can be: to burn stuff.

Another secondary purpose is, of course, light but how is it possible to discuss the purpose of the fire without at least mentioning the above?

I don´t deduce from the ideas of a sociologist in the year 2016. I deduce from the primary sources from 1888.

Pierre

[GUT]

I don´t deduce from the ideas of a sociologist in the year 2016. I deduce from the primary sources from 1888.

Pierre

And fire being sources of burning and heat are ideas that come from sociologists in 2016, now I am confused.

[David Orsam]

I don´t deduce from the ideas of a sociologist in the year 2016. I deduce from the primary sources from 1888.

So what is your primary source from which you deduce that the killer was using the fire for the purpose of light?

[David Orsam]

And fire being sources of burning and heat are ideas that come from sociologists in 2016, now I am confused.

I think he's talking about me GUT, even though I have already told him he is mistaken in saying I'm a sociologist.

[GUT]

I think he's talking about me GUT, even though I have already told him he is mistaken in saying I'm a sociologist.

But I don't even accept that the idea of a fire being used for warmth or to burn things started with you David, as much as I respect your work, pretty sure people knew about heat and consumption by fire 1000s of years back.

[Pierre]

I think he's talking about me GUT, even though I have already told him he is mistaken in saying I'm a sociologist.

DAVID you are going off topic and you are trying to destroy this thread.

[David Orsam]

DAVID you are going off topic and you are trying to destroy this thread.

Here we go again! Building up to being ignored I guess.

But I don't think I was going off topic actually Pierre. You were the person who introduced "the ideas of a sociologist in 2016" into this thread. And I certainly wasn't trying to destroy this thread. So I really have no idea what you are talking about.

[David Orsam]

But I don't even accept that the idea of a fire being used for warmth or to burn things started with you David, as much as I respect your work, pretty sure people knew about heat and consumption by fire 1000s of years back.

It's possible I suppose but do you have a primary source for that?