Let there be light!

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375284]

Good.



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



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




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.

So there is your own hypothesis!

Let's do some basic maths



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



B is not measurable.



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



The killer had no other option.


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



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.



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



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

Hello Pierre,

David is quite right in his response to this post, and I'm also left somewhat stunned and, frankly, almost speechless. I mean, did you not read my post on this subject (52) in which I conveniently cited references? Do you genuinely believe that medical science hasn't advanced since 1888?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375291]

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.

Dead people don´t sing, no. Dr Bond knew nothing about the singing. This is how the sources are produced. Try some external source criticism, David! Bye for now.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;375293]

Hello Pierre,

David is quite right in his response to this post, and I'm also left somewhat stunned and, frankly, almost speechless. I mean, did you not read my post on this subject (52) in which I conveniently cited references? Do you genuinely believe that medical science hasn't advanced since 1888?

The problem is that it HAS advanced, John. Read my response to Steve, and you will understand it all!

Here it is to make it easier for you:

"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." (#69)

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375292][QUOTE=John G;375287]

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

Hello Pierre,

You genuinely believe that there is proof, or even good evidence, that the lost letter you refer to was written by Kelly's murderer? Based upon what exactly? Once again I find myself totally perplexed by one of your responses.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;375296][QUOTE=Pierre;375292]

Hello Pierre,

You genuinely believe that there is proof, or even good evidence, that the lost letter you refer to was written by Kelly's murderer? Based upon what exactly? Once again I find myself totally perplexed by one of your responses.

Based on the fact of the murder on the right date and at the right place.

This letter is predictive.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Based on the fact of the murder on the right date and at the right place.

You mean Thursday 1 November beneath the piers in Yarmouth?

[David Orsam]

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.

Erm, I don't like to rain on your own little parade but the streets weren't closed until 10am on the Friday morning and not in Whitechapel.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375295]

The problem is that it HAS advanced, John. Read my response to Steve, and you will understand it all!

Here it is to make it easier for you:

"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." (#69)

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

I'm not sure I understand this post. The fact is there have been very few long term studies into rigor mortis. In fact, one of the few studies we have dates from the 19th century, which is the study Steve may have partly relied on. And as Payne-James et al (2003) point out:

"However, inter-individual variability, due to both endogenous and exogenous factors, is large. Longitudinal studies on a large random sample have not been done...as with lividity, rigor mortis can give only a rough estimation and no accuracy can be expected: It should never be used in isolation." See:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...estion&f=false

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

so you believe that despite the fact that all the references say Full Rigor occurs about 12 hours after death, Dr Bond was right and that onset can be up to 12 hours, you accept this even when the evidence says he was wrong.

Your attempts at hiding behind science by saying things have changed since 1888, and we cannot use data not used in that year are truly laughable.
Let me assure you that the time taken for Rigor Mortis to reach full state has not changed since 1888.

I was working on a reply to your earlier post, however there is no point.
It is not possible to hold a meaningful debate with a closed mind.

[David Orsam]

Dead people don´t sing, no. Dr Bond knew nothing about the singing. This is how the sources are produced. Try some external source criticism, David! Bye for now.

So here we have an admission that you deliberately decided to take it upon yourself to "improve" Dr Bond's estimate of the time of death because you thought he was quite wrong to say that death could have occurred at 1am.

This is on the basis, you tell us, that dead people don't sing. But do dead people vomit and speak to living people in the streets? I don't think so. Perhaps Dr Bond would have changed his opinion had he known about Mrs Maxwell's evidence as well as the evidence of Sarah Lewis.

You can't just play god, Pierre, and decide what bits of Dr Bond's conclusions you like and which bits you don't like.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;375301]

Let me assure you that the time taken for Rigor Mortis to reach full state has not changed since 1888.

Let me assure you that the methods for measuring rigor mortis have changed since 1888.

[David Orsam]

Let me assure you that the methods for measuring rigor mortis have changed since 1888.

And still it can't be done accurately.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375303]

Let me assure you that the methods for measuring rigor mortis have changed since 1888.

that is not what I said.

do you not understand, not talking about how you measure it, when a body is stiff, it is stiff.

you do not need modern equipment to measure it. it is obvious to the eye.

I assume from your comments, you have great experience of working in mortuaries and with dead bodies then ?

"Let me assure you that the time taken for Rigor Mortis to reach full state has not changed since 1888."

[FrankO]

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

Quite so, Pierre, but this doesn’t mean that, therefore, this is what he wanted or this was important to him.

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?

Why not indoors? Because the women prostituting themselves were easy targets and they usually didn’t service their clients indoors, as most of them didn’t have a place that offered the needed privacy. Also, there may not have been many vacant buildings where he could do his business. Another thing may have been that he preferred easy fixes over laborious planning, finding suitable victims who had places of their own, luring them to vacant houses, sheds or whatnot.

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

In our day, yes. But in those days? It wasn’t necessary, as it wouldn’t minimize risk (but, in fact, quite the opposite). What would minimize risk was to get away without being noticed. If he managed to do that, he would remain at large.

All the best,
Frank

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;375300]

Hello Pierre,

I'm not sure I understand this post. The fact is there have been very few long term studies into rigor mortis. In fact, one of the few studies we have dates from the 19th century, which is the study Steve may have partly relied on. And as Payne-James et al (2003) point out:

"However, inter-individual variability, due to both endogenous and exogenous factors, is large. Longitudinal studies on a large random sample have not been done...as with lividity, rigor mortis can give only a rough estimation and no accuracy can be expected: It should never be used in isolation." See:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...estion&f=false

John. The parameters they discuss in this book did not exist in 1888. That is my point. You can not define an object x from 1888 with instruments from a time 128 years away - in the future! - from the existence of the object X.

It doesn´t matter it we know that rigor mortis can set in after 2 hours, since we can know this using modern technology. But Dr Bond did not have the modern technology to measure rigor mortis in 1888.

After 2 hours in 1888 there was no detectable rigor mortis. In 2016 we have instruments to detect it much earlier, which they did not have in 1888. As multiple regression and many chemical tests.

Regards, Pierre