Let there be light!

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

In reply to your post #194.

"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."


Pierre the methods to detect Rigor Mortis are not an invention of 2016. They are the same methods used in 1888.


"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. "


Your standpoint has been that such information did not exist for Bond, it was not available you have said in 1888.

However it was available at that time.


"But the interesting question you are now stating with 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?"


If you read my post #182 you will see that I am not saying Bond is wrong with regards to Rigor Mortis.

In the annexed report he says:

"Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination.
From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in."


It is your interpretation of the source that I call into question?


"That would be really pointless."

Therefore why do you ask the question?

"Is it a reliable book in 1888?"


regards

[David Orsam]

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?

You're making my point perfectly for me Pierre. Prater might have been mistaken as to time. Just like Cox might have been mistaken as to the time. So perhaps she didn't hear Mary singing at 1am. Perhaps Mary was dead at that time. Therefore, Dr Bond might have been absolutely correct when he said that Mary was murdered at 1am.

Which is why it was completely wrong of you to change Dr Bond's estimate of death from 1am or 2am to only 2am on the basis that dead people don't sing.

[Michael W Richards]

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

Of the THOUSANDS of letters the police received many had predictions of future events in them, none were interpreted as being from someone who had proprietary knowledge about any murders.

What you seem to negate is the evidence that suggests at least 2, perhaps 3 of the Canonicals have investigative data that suggests they were attacked randomly.

[Michael W Richards]

You're making my point perfectly for me Pierre. Prater might have been mistaken as to time. So perhaps she didn't hear Mary singing at 1am. Perhaps Mary was dead at that time. Therefore, Dr Bond might have been absolutely correct when he said that Mary was murdered at 1am.

Which is why it was completely wrong of you to change Dr Bond's estimate of death from 1am or 2am to only 2am on the basis that dead people don't sing.

Before either of you can assume a TOD before 3:45am, you need to explain why the cry out at that time was NOT Mary Kelly. Using Bonds Rigor estimate as a fixed point isnt practical or logical based on that data.

[Pierre]

Pierre,

In reply to your post #194.

"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."

Pierre the methods to detect Rigor Mortis are not an invention of 2016. They are the same methods used in 1888.

So they did have biochemical tests and advanced computer technology in 1888. How interesting. I never heard of it.

"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. "

Your standpoint has been that such information did not exist for Bond, it was not available you have said in 1888.

However it was available at that time.

No, I had no idea he learned regression analysis during his education. Amazing!


"But the interesting question you are now stating with 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?"

If you read my post #182 you will see that I am not saying Bond is wrong with regards to Rigor Mortis.

But you do state that considering his statement for TOD, don´t you?

In the annexed report he says:

"Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination.
From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in."

You dropped the last bit considering TOD. Why?



It is your interpretation of the source that I call into question?

"That would be really pointless."

Therefore why do you ask the question?

"Is it a reliable book in 1888?"

regards

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

As I've noted before, there are serious problems with trying to estimate time of death via rigor mortis. Thus, as I've noted before, studies in this area are rare, one of the most important being from the nineteenth century by 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.

Furthermore, there is a wide range of individual variability. This is because a number of factors effect both the onset and completion of rigor mortis, such as the amount of glycogen in the muscles at the time of death, and ambient temperatures-cold temperatures will slow it down, whereas hot temperatures will speed it up.

In respect of the case under consideration, these are factors we simply cannot know. For instance in respect of ambient temperature, it was a cold night, but in contrast there is the issue of the fire in the grate.

Yes, so no point in trying. Better to perform traditional historical source criticism comparing other sources to the source with the statements of Dr Bond.

What one could do though, is to try and estimate the highest possible temperature in the room in Miller´s Court and from this draw a conclusion about the time of the onset of rigor mortis. The morning of 9 November was rather cold, and so was the night, just a few degrees. And if one could find a 1888 definition of rigor mortis as well as a time frame for the development of it correlated to different room temperatures, one could estimate some sort of mean value from an hypothesis of the fire burning x hours for the time of the onset of rigor mortis. We would also need data for x (fire in grates) > y (temperatures in small rooms). These estimations could not be used in support of or against Dr Bond, though. We would only get our own hypothesis.

Regards, Pierre

[SirJohnFalstaff]

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

It is my understanding that her room was directly above MJK's. So without getting out of bed, she can see the court, but not Dorset street.

Are there any suggestions that her room had a window on Dorset?

[David Orsam]

[B]Yes, so no point in trying. Better to perform traditional historical source criticism comparing other sources to the source with the statements of Dr Bond.

What one could do though, is to try and estimate the highest possible temperature in the room in Miller´s Court and from this draw a conclusion about the time of the onset of rigor mortis. The morning of 9 November was rather cold, and so was the night, just a few degrees. And if one could find a 1888 definition of rigor mortis as well as a time frame for the development of it correlated to different room temperatures, one could estimate some sort of mean value from an hypothesis of the fire burning x hours for the time of the onset of rigor mortis. We would also need data for x (fire in grates) > y (temperatures in small rooms). These estimations could not be used in support of or against Dr Bond, though. We would only get our own hypothesis.

But Bond seems to have taken neither the temperature of the corpse nor the temperature in the room at 2am. Even if he had done so, did he have the knowledge to perform the calculation based on those temperatures to work out time of death? Was it even possible for him to have done so? Would it be possible to do it today?

These are the questions you need to ask Pierre.

And, btw, your continued use of the phrase "source criticism" strikes me as neither helpful to the debate nor having any meaning whatsoever.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375521]

But Bond seems to have taken neither the temperature of the corpse nor the temperature in the room at 2am.

We can´t know if he did. According to the source he states: "The body was comparatively cold at two o´clock".

Even if he had done so, did he have the knowledge to perform the calculation based on those temperatures to work out time of death?

In the source there is no further indication of Dr Bond using temperatures. He is using his observation of the body being "comparatively cold", an observation of "increasing rigor mortis" and an observation of the "partly digested food".

Was it even possible for him to have done so?

History do not consider questions as "was it possible for him" in this case. That question belongs to the set of questions about potential murderers: "Was it possible for him to kill x - was he in Whitechapel?".

You are asking "Was it possible for Dr Bond to perform certain calculations to work out TOD?". He did not perform such calculations, according to the source. So the question can not be answered.

Did he have any "knowledge" is a possible question, though. He must have had knowledge to perform a post mortem examination and to give a probable time of the murder, since that is what he did, according to the source.

Would it be possible to do it today?

Yes, there are such studies.

These are the questions you need to ask Pierre.

And, btw, your continued use of the phrase "source criticism" strikes me as neither helpful to the debate nor having any meaning whatsoever.

Sorry to hear this, David, because that is the only set of relevant methods we have at our disposal in the case of Jack the Ripper, since the case is entirely built on sources from the past. Since you fail to understand the relevance of these methods - as source criticism has no meaning for you- you also fail to understand the case.

Kind Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

We can´t know if he did. According to the source he states: "The body was comparatively cold at two o´clock".

That's why I said he "seems" not to have done it. If he did, he didn't record any temperature.

[David Orsam]

History do not consider questions as "was it possible for him" in this case.

You realise that sentence doesn't make any sense, right?

[David Orsam]

You are asking "Was it possible for Dr Bond to perform certain calculations to work out TOD?". He did not perform such calculations, according to the source. So the question can not be answered.

That is a non sequitur Pierre. Do you know what that means?

The fact that he did not perform such calculations does not in any way mean that we can't answer to the question as to whether it was possible for him to have done so.

[Pierre]

It is my understanding that her room was directly above MJK's. So without getting out of bed, she can see the court, but not Dorset street.

Are there any suggestions that her room had a window on Dorset?

Hi,

this has been discussed before. Here is a suggestion for were she lived, and then there would have been a large room with a window towards Dorset Street. I have no good source for this idea.

Another suggestion is she went out and saw that the light was out after she heard the scream (if she lived on top of Kelly´s room).

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Did he have any "knowledge" is a possible question, though. He must have had knowledge to perform a post mortem examination and to give a probable time of the murder, since that is what he did, according to the source.

You must be able to see that this isn't true at all Pierre. I mean, Morris Lewis could have gone into that rooom and "performed a post mortem examination" and given a probable time of the murder. The issue is whether Dr Bond was correct in what he did and in his conclusions.

[David Orsam]

Yes, there are such studies.

Could you please identify these studies Pierre and, if you wouldn't mind, summarise their conclusions.