Let there be light!

[Pierre]

Perhaps you should look again at the actual evidence Pierre.

Prater said that she went out at about 9pm and returned about 1am, "and stood at the bottom of Millers Court until about 1.30."

This enabled her to say that: "From 1am to 1.30am no one passed up the court if they did I should have seen them".

At the inquest, she said again that she returned home at about 1am at which time "I stood at the corner by Mr McCarthys shop till about 20 minutes past 1 I spoke to no one". She then said, "I went up to my room" adding, "I went in about 1.30". That's when she put two tables against the door.

She also said:

"I went to bed at half past one - I did not hear any singing. - I should have heard anyone singing in the deceaseds room at 1 oclock, there was no singing."

So she was back at 1am, hung around the corner of Millers Court until about 1.20 then went to her room and went to bed at 1.30. She heard no singing but said she would have heard singing had there been any.

So how did Mary Ann Cox hear Mary Jane singing at that time?

The statement "one o´clock" is a very simple matter of validity in the sources. You can not use the sources as a clock giving exact seconds or minutes.

Prater was busy talking to McCarty in this time period. That is a matter of reliability in that source. There is a risk of misremembering and therefore not being able to state the exact time as to minutes.

But this does not mean that the sources are "useless" if that is your next strategy to destroy the discussion.

It is only a matter of performing source criticism, which you do not do if you use a source as a clock for making exact decisions about seconds or a very few minutes.


And another thing: Who do you think was the owner of a watch if you must pick one? Prater or Dr Bond?

Pierre

[Elamarna]

And here it is again. The never changing "view". Always based on "obvious facts".

God luck with this tautological idea!

Kind regards, Pierre

My dear Pierre,

Once again the never changing argument, anyone who does not agree with you is wrong!


Repeating over and over again, Bond is the source, we can only use the source, we cannot look at anything not in the source takes research no further forward, especially when:

1. The source may be using inaccurate information, in this case data for an earlier onset period for Rigor Mortis WAS available in 1888.

2.,When the interpretation of that source is wrong, which I believe it is in this case.

Your view is the one that is tautological.

have a good day.

[Pierre]

My dear Pierre,

Once again the never changing argument, anyone who does not agree with you is wrong!

I have never said that. It is exclusively your own argument.

Repeating over and over again, Bond is the source, we can only use the source, we cannot look at anything not in the source takes research no further forward, especially when:

1. The source may be using inaccurate information, in this case

data for an earlier onset period for Rigor Mortis WAS available in 1888.

OK! What data is that?

2.,When the interpretation of that source is wrong, which I believe it is in this case.

Your view is the one that is tautological.

have a good day.

Same to you!

[Elamarna]

Same to you!

My, we are touchy today.

The source is the one John mentioned in you in post #174

but have attached some details for you

[Michael W Richards]

Since this seems to be about TOD more than light from the room, there are two witness statements that include hearing a cry "as if from the court...and...as if at the door" at approximately 3:45-4:00am. No-one on record claimed to be the owner of that voice. There is only 1 person in the Kelly murder story that couldnt claim the voice the next day. The victim.

That call out was followed by no appreciable sound, which suggests a state of annoyance or surprise culminating in acceptance or resignation.

If Mary made the cry out, I can see a scenario that has her startled from sleep by someone she "reluctantly" lets in at almost 4am. Which of course would rule out completely someone unknown to her, which would be another murderer profile characteristic she doesnt share with the Canonicals.

[Michael W Richards]

that's the Miller's Court lamp.

She said the lodginghouse light was out, not the courtyard light, so its unclear if she meant Crossinghams or not.

[Pierre]

My, we are touchy today.

The source is the one John mentioned in you in post #174

but have attached some details for you

And John wrote in that post (if you allow me to quote you here, John):

"Niderkorn (1872), which found that it was fully established in 76 out of 113 corpses after 4-7 hours, and in two others within 2 hours. Of course, what is required is further longitudinal studies, and we are not, of course, entitled to assume that the results of the Nikerdorn study would necessarily be replicated in such studies."

Steve, now you give me the reference of this book and what you call "details":

So I guess you want to draw a conclusion about Dr Bond NOT having sufficient knowledge in 1888 about rigor mortis in relation to this book.

Is this correct?

By thinking that and by using the reference of that book, I guess you have some thoughts about it and to be able to have such thoughts about the book and about the knowledge of Dr Bond, you should know something about it, like:

What are the contents of the book and what are the results in it?

Is it a reliable book in 1888?

What is the correlation between this book and the statement of Dr Bond?

Has he read the book?

Does he agree with the contents of this book?

Or does he not agree?

Does the conclusion of Dr Bond have anything to do with the contents of this book?

Very interesting subject, by the way, Steve.

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

As far as I can tell, Pierre, you still haven't explained why Prater heard no singing at 1am yet Mrs Cox did hear singing at 1am.

Mary Ann had passed Marys room 3 times,... on the way out, then in, then on the way out again after 1am... by the time she recognized that the singing had stopped. Praters statement affirms that point, and includes the dark room element, so her real value here is with Diddles being startled before the cry out near 4am, and those observations of the room at 1:30. Anything else that she says isnt relevant to the ultimate question here.

[Elamarna]

Since this seems to be about TOD more than light from the room, there are two witness statements that include hearing a cry "as if from the court...and...as if at the door" at approximately 3:45-4:00am. No-one on record claimed to be the owner of that voice. There is only 1 person in the Kelly murder story that couldnt claim the voice the next day. The victim.

That call out was followed by no appreciable sound, which suggests a state of annoyance or surprise culminating in acceptance or resignation.

If Mary made the cry out, I can see a scenario that has her startled from sleep by someone she "reluctantly" lets in at almost 4am. Which of course would rule out completely someone unknown to her, which would be another murderer profile characteristic she doesnt share with the Canonicals.

Dear Michael,

your suggesting on the owner of the voice is certainly a valid option, one which was not considered in the hypothesis put forward in post #1.
One assumes this was because the whole hypotheses is built around a death at 2am.

steve

[packers stem]

Since this seems to be about TOD more than light from the room, there are two witness statements that include hearing a cry "as if from the court...and...as if at the door" at approximately 3:45-4:00am. No-one on record claimed to be the owner of that voice. There is only 1 person in the Kelly murder story that couldnt claim the voice the next day. The victim.

That call out was followed by no appreciable sound, which suggests a state of annoyance or surprise culminating in acceptance or resignation.

If Mary made the cry out, I can see a scenario that has her startled from sleep by someone she "reluctantly" lets in at almost 4am. Which of course would rule out completely someone unknown to her, which would be another murderer profile characteristic she doesnt share with the Canonicals.

Hi Michael

As I was turning round I heard a suppressed cry of "Oh - murder!" in a faint voice. It seemed to proceed from the court.
Praters testimony

Seems clear that the sound came from the courtyard.
If you live in a flat above someone, as I do, you become attuned to whether a sound comes from the room below or from outside. She must surely have heard the cry come from the direction of the window

[Rosella]

I would accept that the inference of the two Norwich women being killed due to drinking more than their share were it not for the fact that that letter from Dorset St was sent to Great Yarmouth in Norfolk. It quite obviously was sent by someone from the county of Norfolk who was a lodger in Dorset St to taunt the Great Yarmouth police that two women from Norwich, a town only twenty miles away from there, were going to get killed by Jack between the two piers of the seaside resort.

Yes, it's somewhat strange that it was written in a house near where Mary Kelly was found dead. However, coincidences are sometimes like that. You wonder how many other letters were sent from London and elsewhere in 1888 taunting the police in other jurisdictions that Jack was about to visit them. There were probably hundreds.

[Elamarna]

And John wrote in that post (if you allow me to quote you here, John):



Steve, now you give me the reference of this book and what you call "details":

So I guess you want to draw a conclusion about Dr Bond NOT having sufficient knowledge in 1888 about rigor mortis in relation to this book.

Is this correct?

By thinking that and by using the reference of that book, I guess you have some thoughts about it and to be able to have such thoughts about the book and about the knowledge of Dr Bond, you should know something about it, like:

What are the contents of the book and what are the results in it?

Is it a reliable book in 1888?

What is the correlation between this book and the statement of Dr Bond?

Has he read the book?

Does he agree with the contents of this book?

Or does he not agree?

Does the conclusion of Dr Bond have anything to do with the contents of this book?

Very interesting subject, by the way, Steve.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre


The Issue is you have stated over and over again that the knowledge with regards to the early onset of Rigor Mortis was Not available in 1888, and Bond could Not have known about it.


What is being pointed out to you is that:

1. Such knowledge was available in 1888, indeed some years before.

2. Bond could have Known about It, not that he did.

However you appear to now want to dispute this well established Scientific/Medical paper because it does not fit with your ideas.

Have a really good day

[Pierre]

I would accept that the inference of the two Norwich women being killed due to drinking more than their share were it not for the fact that that letter from Dorset St was sent to Great Yarmouth in Norfolk. It quite obviously was sent by someone from the county of Norfolk who was a lodger in Dorset St to taunt the Great Yarmouth police that two women from Norwich, a town only twenty miles away from there, were going to get killed by Jack between the two piers of the seaside resort.

Yes, it's somewhat strange that it was written in a house near where Mary Kelly was found dead. However, coincidences are sometimes like that. You wonder how many other letters were sent from London and elsewhere in 1888 taunting the police in other jurisdictions that Jack was about to visit them. There were probably hundreds.

OK. So how many of the letters predicted a murder / What is the probability a letter would predict a murder?

And what is the probability for the prediction of the right time and place?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;375503]Pierre

The Issue is you have stated over and over again that the knowledge with regards to the early onset of Rigor Mortis was Not available in 1888, and Bond could Not have known about it.

I have not stated that research of early onset did not exist in 1888. I have stated the methods to detect it, which are inventions of 2016, did not exist in 1888. So "rigor mortis" are different concepts in different times - just like many other concepts like "gender", "smoking", " health" and so on.

What is being pointed out to you is that:

1. Such knowledge was available in 1888, indeed some years before.

1) How does it relate to the statements of Dr Bond in the source at hand?

2. Bond could have Known about It, not that he did.

2) Is that the answer? "Possibility"? That is useful in questions like "Was the suspect in London / Whitechapel during the murders? but not in this question.

But the interesting question you are now suggesting is:

Can we use other sources even from 1888 (or a decade earlier) to research the question about Dr Bond being "wrong" or "right"? Is it possible to use an external source to judge the statement of Dr Bond?

I would really like to hear your arguments for and against this, if you have any.

However you appear to now want to dispute this well established Scientific/Medical paper because it does not fit with your ideas.

That would be really pointless.

Have a really good day

Regards, Pierre

[wigngown]

Hello Pierre,
If such a letter did indeed exist then only the Killer, or someone who knew the Killers plans, could have been the author of it. Had the letter been posted/delivered to the right person & in good time, then the Killer would have been caught, but he wasn't. The killer wasn't stupid.

Best regards.