Let there be light!

[packers stem]

yes,
no way it can be ruled out.

but as with all missing/non existent files. we need something else to assume they existed in first place.

example:
pretty sure there must once have been a poice file of somesort on Kosminsky. just because where did Anderson, MM and Swanson get info to mention him. didn't need be big file

s

Scapegoat possibly??

[GUT]

Hello GUT,

I agree with you completely. That the police were complete idiots is the sine qua non of so many theories. Take that away and so many of those theories fail.

c.d.

So many theories fall apart when we work on the assumption that the police would have made the type of enquiries that the "man on the Clapham Omnibus" would have made.

Or that they weren't so stupid that they couldn't find their backside with a mirror on a stick.




For those that don't know the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, was a legal invention, basically meaning a common man with the same standards and abilities (including common sense) as Joe Average.

[GUT]

Including any Maurice Lewis statement possibly

No reason why not.

[GUT]

The police weren't idiots by any stretch of the imagination. It's a tragedy though that reports about Eddowes were lost in the Blitz, that so much in the Ripper files was stolen by sticky fingered police and civilians, and that a paper shortage in WW2 was used as an excuse to raid old files. So much has been lost...

Yep the War (don't mention the war).

I was trying to find an ancestors will. It is in the registers, but guess what happened to the will itself .... Yep a bomb.

[Shaggyrand]

Robert

Very possibly,
however that would not rule out the solder melting as a result of one heating too many so to speak on a normal fire.

I am undecided on this. I have to honestly say, can see both sides of debate.

would help if we had a proper report from Abberline regarding the issue.

Steve

Solder used at the time (like most used primarily today) had pretty low melting points. It's possible that the kettle was just set too close, or even in, to a normal sized fire. There's just too many ways the kettle could have ended up in that state. A large blaze in the grate is good for a story but not necessarily the truth.
I have rambled about the average heat from various fuel sources and solder melting points before on the site, and about burning clothes, but am too lazy to bother trying to remember them all at the moment.

[John G]

So many theories fall apart when we work on the assumption that the police would have made the type of enquiries that the "man on the Clapham Omnibus" would have made.

Or that they weren't so stupid that they couldn't find their backside with a mirror on a stick.




For those that don't know the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, was a legal invention, basically meaning a common man with the same standards and abilities (including common sense) as Joe Average.

Yes, many people's theories seem to be predicated on the assumption that the police were something akin to the Keystone Cops, not even bothering to interview potentially key witnesses, and easily outwitted by clever locals, such as Barnett, who were obviously criminal masterminds!

[John G]

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 Millerīs 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 Kellyīs room
02.00 TOD (time of death) according to Dr Bond
03.00 Cox seeing that the light was out in Kellyīs 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 Kellyīs room
03.00 Cox seeing that the light was out in Kellyīs 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?

Letīs 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

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.

Thus, as the R v Truscott case illustrated, an analysis of stomach contents is an unreliable method, and rigor mortis even less so, expect within very broad parameters, i.e. 12 hours: see http://www.mackscriminallaw.com/pathology-law/ Also see the excellent analysis of Payne James et al, (2003): https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...estion&f=false
Therefore, I would conclude by saying this: he who seeks to rely on the opinions of the Victorian GPs does so at his/her own peril. In fact, I keep pointing this out, but do people take any notice? No, they don't, instead preferring to unquestionably accept the opinions of the Victorian doctors as if they were modern forensic experts, or even seers! As Dr Biggs opined, ..."in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said."( Marriott, 2013). Seems things haven't changed much!

[John G]

Posted on wrong thread!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;375161]

There is no definitive evidence that there was any "large" fire in that fireplace at all on the night she is murdered.

Yes, there is evidence. But the problem is that you say "definitive" evidence. Historians usually do not speak in terms of "definitive" evidence when researching complex historical questions. For simple things like: "What year did X become king?" it is a completely different issue.

So you can not apply the "definitive" as a concept on a complex historical question. And you can certainly NOT treat this issue as a matter or "forensical definitive evidence" from a 2016 point of view, since the sources we have are sources from the past, from 1888, and sources from the past must be historically analysed and interpreted.

So you will never, ever have "definitive evidence" in the meaning of forensic material like DNA, for example. And that is only one reason why Russell Edwards failed. And if you can not live with it, you should NOT study the case at all.

But the good news is, we DO have very good possibilities for giving HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, that is, evidence based on source criticism.

And this gives us the possibility of reaching a reliable and valid interpretation, and this interpretation will give you a coherent history, based on well researched sources.

The speculation is made by investigators, and its partially based on a the kettle having its solder melted off. The assumption was that the "large" fire did that, when in fact repeated re-heating over a prolonged period of time would do the same thing. The ashes were warm when investigators entered the room Friday afternoon...and thats the only fact in the "large" fire propoganda.

It is OK if you call the statements of Abberline "speculations" - but it is not OK if you do not explain why you define them as "speculations", since Abberline was under oath:

Did he speculate, being under oath? This is what you say. So why do you say that?

As a reminder, the items found in the ashes were not completely burnt either, they were partially burnt...and that includes the highly flammable velvet piece

Good. The size of the fire is of no importance at all. It could be called a "small fire", "normal fire", "a fire" or "a rather large fire".

The hypothesis I have chosen (an active choice made from analysing the data) is the same:

The fire was lit after the murder.

History does not present itself as "Hello, I am History. Definitive and Evidential.". History is a social construction of sources from the past. It is a scientific construction made by social agents, based on sources, source criticism, analyse and interpretation.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;375165]

IMHO I've always felt that the most obvious chain of events was

HI Abby Normal,

Do you think it is OK to use ones own "feeling" to construct knowledge about an historical problem?

If I would feel, for example (which I do not) that it was McCarthy who reminded his tenants to be careful with the fire in the rooms and the tenants wanted to protest by lighting large fires, is that feeling enough for saying that this was the case in reality?

that Kelly and blotchy lit the fire, for warmth and maybe more light shortly after they arrived in her room.

Then later in the night, after Mary was killed, her killer fired it up for more light so he could see his mutilations better, also using the cloths that were in the room to do so.

How reasonable this sounds. And feels. IF IT WAS A MATTER OF EVERYDAY LIFE HERE AND NOW AND NOTHING MORE.

But can we base knowledge on feelings when it comes to complex historical questions? No.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;375179]Hi Pierre,

Interesting. This makes "Jack" apparently the first killer I know of that not only invited strangers to come in and view his hitherto partially hidden handiwork (as he killed women on darkened streets before this), but proved his showmanship in this field by providing better lighting to see his work! Incredible.

Hi Jeff,

Yes, I think it is incredible to. But it goes well with his MO, putting bodies on display on streets and outside houses out in the open: actually it explains why he chose a murder site indoors! He had not planned to hide away his victim. He wanted the victim to be discovered. He must have wanted this, since this is what happened. First his unknown female witness and thereafter, his known male witness.

Usually killers don't like witnesses,

Right! So why chose to kill in high risk places like Buckīs Row, Berner Street and Millerīs Court? He had to estimate the risk of being discovered in relation to his plan for the very important discovery of the victims.

and I really cannot see how he could have brought the two ladies in, showed the remains of Mary,

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".

and somehow convinced them that he stumbled on the shambles and only wanted to show it to them or anyone else. Actually I tended to think he'd try to kill any real witness associating himself with any corpse he had created

Did he ever do that? No.

But you may know more than I do. Nice time-line.

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

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375234]

Hi Pierre,


Hi Jeff,

Yes, I think it is incredible to. But it goes well with his MO, putting bodies on display on streets and outside houses out in the open: actually it explains why he chose a murder site indoors! He had not planned to hide away his victim. He wanted the victim to be discovered. He must have wanted this, since this is what happened. First his unknown female witness and thereafter, his known male witness.



Right! So why chose to kill in high risk places like Buckīs Row, Berner Street and Millerīs Court? He had to estimate the risk of being discovered in relation to his plan for the very important discovery of the victims.



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".



Did he ever do that? No.



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

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

How do you know it was the killer that chose the murder venues, i.e. Miller's Court? How do you know he wanted his victims to be discovered? This implies a purposeful approach when it might have been merely incidental. Is this just a "feeling" that you have?

In fact, when a poster makes a declaration, such as 'I think I've found him", or "there can hardly be any doubt about it", how can that represent anything more than a "feeling", or an intuition if you like. After all, as you said yourself, we're totally lacking in any "definitive evidence."

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;375167]Pierre,

The hypothesise seems to be based on the following
1. A suggested possible time of death, base on the onset of Rigor Mortis which is presented as an established TOD.

However there has been much research done on this, including the below dissertation

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/ripperoo-todeath.html

Nothing of that has lead the case forward.

"Jules Rosenthal managed to develop information involving a report from a Dr. Thomas Bond. According to Dr. Bond, who performed the autopsy on Kelly at 2:00 p.m. rigor mortis had started to set in, but became more pronounced during the examination. Quoting from his annexed report of the autopsy he says: “Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the process of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death…” "

I and Jules Rosenthal have different methods, make different analyses, different interpretations, and get different results. Even if we use the same material.

2. With a time of death at 2am, obviously the cry of "oh Murder" could not have come from Kelly. Therefore there must be someone else who made such a cry.

That is my interpretation as well.

However there is no conclusive proof that this cry was linked to the murder, it may have been; it may not.

The probability is high since the same observation was made by two witnesses and occurred on the night of a murder.

At the inquest Sarah Lewis even stated: "The sound seemed to come from the direction of deceaseds room...". (Original, primary source.)

Of course the firm 2am TOD, is not an indisputable scientific fact, there is a time range for determining TOD based on Rigor Mortis, which is acknowledged in the post itself:

"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",

Science do not establish "indisputable" scientific facts. If it did, science would stop existing. We have normal science as a norm and it is constantly changing through scientific revolutions over time. The paradigm within ripperology concerning the cry "Oh, Murder" today is that it is not "explained".

I challenge this by saying it is explained.

[B]It should also be noted that this range is not a universal given, it can and does vary.

Universally given things are produced by the domineering producers of universally given things, that is, the producers of the universe of knowledge. Small people like me often tend to be unheard.

3. The large fire was lit to illuminated the murder scene. the killer was used to working in low light, so it must have been for someone else.

The idea of a large fire is based on the kettle spout having separated due to the melting of solder and the ashes still being warm on Friday afternoon.

However the spout could have come off as the result of continual use, that is being heated up many times.

As for the ashes, some remnants of the fire were found to not be completely burnt, this does not fit well with a large fire.

Lets us however accept there was a fire in Kelly's room that night.

It is certainly possible that Kelly lit the fire herself, there is no source which says she did not.

Of course there is no "source which says she did not". The past does not leave sources to us saying such things. There is no source with the statement "I, Mary Jane Kelly, did not light a fire this night. Written 9 November 1888" Signed Mary Jane Kelly.

So that argument is not possible, since that source is not possible.

And there is no source saying "I saw Mary Jane lighting a fire and I stood outside the window all night and looked at that fire".

[U]If you want to discuss the issue, you must use the sources at hand, the existing sources.

History can not be written from non existing sources.

There is a claim for a "Dark Period" in the thread, from 1.30am to 3.00am, based on two statements which are made some 90 minutes apart. To suggest that it was dark for all that time is a great assumption is it not?

Your choice of wording is "a great assumption". In history, we use "validity" as a concept and not "great assumptions".

I think the witness sources are of rather high validity. The reliability for the exact time period is not very high, since there are only two points in time.

But if you use some mathematics, as you have done, 90 minutes for lighting a fire and putting it out again would mean that the period was not a dark time period but a light time period.

It must then have coincided exactly with or near to the two points in time where it was dark in the room.

The probability for that is low, since you have two independent sources stating that it was dark at two points during this time period but there is not one single source stating it was light.

Is there a source to back this assumption?

I just did back it up, see above.

In Conclusion

The thread involves making several very large assumptions and does not seem to contain enough evidence to allow the conclusion reached.

You need to think in terms of reliability, validity and source criticism to be able to understand what I am saying: "very large assumptions" "enough evidence" are not the right concepts.

They do not work in history.

Pierre what evidence do you have there was a witness, whom the killer wanted to see what he had done to Kelly?

regards

The sources for the scream "Oh, Murder" observed by two witnesses.

The sources giving the statements of when it was dark in the room of the victim.

The statement of Dr Bond.

So: the victim herself can not have been the woman who screamed "Oh, Murder!".

That can not be a very controversial hypothesis. So who was it?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Robert

Very possibly,
however that would not rule out the solder melting as a result of one heating too many so to speak on a normal fire.

I am undecided on this. I have to honestly say, can see both sides of debate.

would help if we had a proper report from Abberline regarding the issue.

Steve

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

[Pierre]

A side question:- If McCarthy was so anxious to collect the rent arrears, why did he wait as long as he did? Why not send Indian Harry round at 9am?

How do we know he was anxious?

McCarthy knew what to expect from Kelly: no rent. Why hurry?

Regards, Pierre