Let there be light!

[Pierre]

We're back to a circular argument.

Why was Mrs Maxwell not a reliable source? Because Kelly was dead before 9am. How can we say Kelly was dead before 9am in view of Mrs Maxwell's evidence? Because Mrs Maxwell was not a reliable source.

That's all I've heard from you basically.

No. The reasons why Mrs Maxwell is not a reliable witness (!) are many. First of all, in the hierarchy of sources, both the Bond-source and the Maxwell-sources are on top of this hierarchy.

BUT: Who is the most reliable witness for estimating the TOD for the victim?

I certainly hope that you can distinguish Dr Bond and his statements from Mrs Maxwell and her statements.

The historically established fact (a fact that some try to change due to the lack of understanding of the sources) that they are speaking about the same person - Kelly - does NOT mean that the witnesses are EQUALLY reliable as witnesses!

It does NOT mean that their knowledge about the victim is the same or that they both have an equally good possibility to give reliable statements about the victim.

I really hope you understand that.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Actually, I now realise that Pierre has got the wrong end of the stick completely. Even worse than I thought.

To be clear Pierre:

I'm saying that the rigor mortis that Dr Bond DID detect could have come on much quicker than the minimum time of 6 hours suggested by Dr Bond. What he didn't realise, because there was not enough medical knowledge at the time, was that the rigor mortis he detected could have started, say, 4 hours after death. In other words, based on his own observations, death could have occurred at 10am.

Do you agree with this?

[John G]

Can I second this question.

Yes, I wish you would! Confused? You will be!

I've also got a funny feeling that we might be about to enter a murky philosophical debate into the theory of being and knowing!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;375414]

Pierre

you have not answered the questions you were asked?

When someone states categorically that there have been changes in a method of examination, and they are asked what those changes are: the minimum that is normally expected in reply is a brief explanation of those changes.

what was supplied as an answer was a link to a publication of a book published in 2002, which includes the abstract in your post.

The site says "Full text not available from this repository."

One has to ask, have YOU actually read this publication? Or is the source the result of an internet search?

Do You know what the changes in method are? that is the question you were asked.

regards

steve

OK Steve. There are techincal, biochemical methods used nowadays to examine rigor mortis that did not exist in 1888. The consequence is that it can be detected much earlier by using other methods and standards. There is also regression analysis and factor analysis which is used to examine which variables and factors are the most important for detecting rigor mortis. These did not exist in 1888 since they had not been invented yet. So rigor mortis has been developed as a concept, it has been reconceptualized and the operational definitions for it are much more complex than they were in 1888. You will come to that conclusion if you read the book I recommended.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I certainly hope that you can distinguish Dr Bond and his statements from Mrs Maxwell and her statements.

I certainly can Pierre.

Dr Bond: Of very low reliability because he was unaware of the time it could take for the onset of rigor mortis post mortem.

Mrs Maxwell: Said she saw MJK alive with her own eyes and spoke to her at 9am. She could, of course, have been mistaken but Dr Bond's evidence in no way contradicts her evidence. THAT is the point.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375419]

Actually, I now realise that Pierre has got the wrong end of the stick completely. Even worse than I thought.

To be clear Pierre:

I'm saying that the rigor mortis that Dr Bond DID detect could have come on much quicker than the minimum time of 6 hours suggested by Dr Bond. What he didn't realise, because there was not enough medical knowledge at the time, was that the rigor mortis he detected could have started, say, 4 hours after death. In other words, based on his own observations, death could have occurred at 10am.

Do you agree with this?

Do you know how Dr Bond measured rigor mortis? If you do, can you explain it to everyone?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375421]

OK Steve. There are techincal, biochemical methods used nowadays to examine rigor mortis that did not exist in 1888. The consequence is that it can be detected much earlier by using other methods and standards. There is also regression analysis and factor analysis which is used to examine which variables and factors are the most important for detecting rigor mortis. These did not exist in 1888 since they had not been invented yet. So rigor mortis has been developed as a concept, it has been reconceptualized and the operational definitions for it are much more complex than they were in 1888. You will come to that conclusion if you read the book I recommended.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre

Ah, are we now entering a philosophical debate into the theory of being and knowing, as I predicted? In other words, are you theorizing that if rigor mortis couldn't be detected in 1888, i e. within 30 minutes, because of technological limitations, then it didn't actually exist?

[IchabodCrane]

Hi IchabodCrane,

The sources for that time period is of rather low validity since all we know is:

Dark time period 2:

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

Since Prater says nothing, we can not know anything about this period. The scream was not observed in this time period and there is not one statement of any activity or light seen in the room, so we can only hypothesize that it was dark.

I donīt know why they did not ask her about the light at that time. Perhaps they did not consider it relevant, even if we think it should have been relevant.

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

my point was that your possible light period 2 should extend from 3.30 - 5.00 because we do not know whether it was dark or light, so it was possibly light. The categorization you apply is dark periods (certain) vs. light periods (possible). So the period 3.30 - 5.00 is possibly light because it is not certainly dark.

Best regards,
IchabodCrane

[Pierre]

Well I agree with you Pierre. And that means that Dr Bond's estimate of the time of death was wrong, being based on a faulty premise, doesn't it?

Do you also want to make a post modern diagnosis of Jack the Ripper? They called him "mad" and "a lunatic"? They must have been "wrong".

Now, we, in 2016, would know better, wouldnīt we? Was he not a schizophrenic - or perhaps a psychopath? What diagnosis should they have given him, if they had only had the "right" knowledge?

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

my point was that your possible light period 2 should extend from 3.30 - 5.00 because we do not know whether it was dark or light, so it was possibly light. The categorization you apply is dark periods (certain) vs. light periods (possible). So the period 3.30 - 5.00 is possibly light because it is not certainly dark.

Best regards,
IchabodCrane

Hi IchaBodcrane,

I see. But the last indication of anyone seeing anything in or near room 13 Millerīs Court is the observation of the scream "Oh, Murder!". And this was heard shortly before 04.00.

So there is not really any evidence for light after this, even if we could think there might have been. Anyway, the validity of this "dark time period" is low.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Do you know how Dr Bond measured rigor mortis? If you do, can you explain it to everyone?

Yes I do know Pierre. He carried out a visual examination. Rigor is detected by physical means, eyelids, jaw and joints are checked to assess the degree of stiffness (N.B. thanks to Steve for the cheat summary!!!).

Basically what he was saying was that as Rigor Mortis had set in at 2pm, and Rigor Mortis doesn't set in until at least 6 hours after death, then Kelly must have been murdered at least 6 hours before 2pm (i.e. 8am) but considering the coldness of the body and the partly digested food he estimated time of death at about 12 hours before his examination, i.e. about 1 or 2am.

The problems with his estimate (as we now know in 2016) were threefold:

1. Rigor can set in well before 6 hours after death.
2. Body temperature doesn't assist in estimating how long a person has been dead so the fact that she was cold couldn't get him to the conclusion that he reached.
3. People digest food at different rates so he could not properly have concluded that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken (and he didn't know when she last ate food anyway).

So, with his premises being flawed, his conclusion was wrong too. Or, at least, he did not have a reasonable basis to reach that conclusion.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;375425]

Hi Pierre

Ah, are we now entering a philosophical debate into the theory of being and knowing, as I predicted? In other words, are you theorizing that if rigor mortis couldn't be detected in 1888, i e. within 30 minutes, because of technological limitations, then it didn't actually exist?

It did not exist for Dr Bond.

And Dr Bond is in the source.

Not a postmodern scientist.

That is not philosophy, it is an established historical fact.

And how would you be able to enter the source and give it some other knowledge, based on other measurement, with biochemical instruments?

You can not alter historical sources - they are perhaps difficult to accept, but they are remnants from the past, giving us an exclusive perspective of the past, if we treat them right!

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Do you also want to make a post modern diagnosis of Jack the Ripper? They called him "mad" and "a lunatic"? They must have been "wrong".

Now, we, in 2016, would know better, wouldnīt we? Was he not a schizophrenic - or perhaps a psychopath? What diagnosis should they have given him, if they had only had the "right" knowledge?

There is no bio-medical proof for the existence of schizophrenia, or most other mental health conditions for that matter. Therefore, they may exist only as social constructs, as suggested by theorists such as Thomas Szasz, for example. See also Francis and Widiger (2012), which highlights the main conceptual problems.

[IchabodCrane]

Hi IchaBodcrane,

I see. But the last indication of anyone seeing anything in or near room 13 Millerīs Court is the observation of the scream "Oh, Murder!". And this was heard shortly before 04.00.

So there is not really any evidence for light after this, even if we could think there might have been. Anyway, the validity of this "dark time period" is low.

Kind regards, Pierre

Sorry I meant your possible light period 1. That period should logically extend from 3.30 (or a bit earlier even) - 5.00, because there is equal reason to suppose (or doubt) that it was light before the scream was heard and after. The scream could have been uttered in total darkness (not in your theory but in others).

As you said, the next witness account is only at 5.00 am, and doesn't say light or dark, from which you (and me) suppose that is was more likely dark than light.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375430]

It did not exist for Dr Bond.

And Dr Bond is in the source.

Not a postmodern scientist.

That is not philosophy, it is an established historical fact.

And how would you be able to enter the source and give it some other knowledge, based on other measurement, with biochemical instruments?

You can not alter historical sources - they are perhaps difficult to accept, but they are remnants from the past, giving us an exclusive perspective of the past, if we treat them right!

Regards, Pierre

Now I'm really confused. Are you saying that if it did not exist for Dr Bond then it didn't exist in reality? I mean, there are historical sources stating that the earth is flat, does that mean the earth was flat at the time those sources were created?