Let there be light!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375582]

We can ask whatever questions we like.

OK, so then it is not science but art. Great! So could the killer have been Mary Jane Kelly? Who knows? Maybe someone killed her out of revenge, couldn´t she have been killing all the rest and then be murdered herself? Oh, and I have been wondering about that Hutchinson. Perhaps he and McCarthy were the killers, and they cooperated, could that have been the case? Could that have been why Hutchinson was standing outside of Miller´s Court, waiting for McCarthy? Could that have happened? And also, could Prater have been mistaken about the time altogether during that night, since she was so drunk? Perhaps the kitten woke her up at two o´clock in the night and she heard "Oh, Murder!"? Is that possible? Could it have happened? Or perhaps it was 10 o´clock in the morning and Prater was to drunk to understand that? What do you think? Could that be the case? No. It must have been Lechmere. He COULD HAVE BEEN at the murder sites!!! IF he was there, he COULD HAVE done it!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375583]

It was a very simple question Pierre.

I was asking if you agreed with the statement that: if Kelly stopped singing at any time before 1am she could have been dead at 1am.

Using the magic of "source criticism", it's perfectly obvious that your refusal to answer the question is that you realize that the only answer you can give is "YES", being an answer that you don't like, hence the meaningless waffle in your post.

David. It is not an historical question.

[David Orsam]

OK, so then it is not science but art. Great!

Someone needs to tell you that history is not, in fact, science.

[David Orsam]

So could the killer have been Mary Jane Kelly? Who knows? Maybe someone killed her out of revenge, couldn´t she have been killing all the rest and then be murdered herself? Oh, and I have been wondering about that Hutchinson. Perhaps he and McCarthy were the killers, and they cooperated, could that have been the case? Could that have been why Hutchinson was standing outside of Miller´s Court, waiting for McCarthy? Could that have happened? And also, could Prater have been mistaken about the time altogether during that night, since she was so drunk? Perhaps the kitten woke her up at two o´clock in the night and she heard "Oh, Murder!"? Is that possible? Could it have happened? Or perhaps it was 10 o´clock in the morning and Prater was to drunk to understand that? What do you think? Could that be the case? No. It must have been Lechmere. He COULD HAVE BEEN at the murder sites!!! IF he was there, he COULD HAVE done it!

This sounds remarkably like a number of the theories you have already introduced to this forum.

[David Orsam]

David. It is not an historical question.

Of course it is a historical question Pierre but there is no point arguing about it because it's absolutely irrelevant what type of question it is.

It's a question. Full stop.

Where in the rules of this forum does it say we are only allowed to ask certain types of questions?

And equally there is nowhere that says you must answer questions so, look, if you don't want to answer my question forget about it. This has become so boring.

[John G]

The Black Swan

Sorry John, I think you'll find that's no longer true...

https://www.newscientist.com/article...life-of-facts/

No, it is a fundamental truth. Facts don't change, although what we consider to be facts might. Thus, it was once thought that all swans were white. In fact, there were textbooks that confidently stated "All swans are white." Then Australia was discovered...

[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 Miller´s 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 Kelly´s room
02.00 TOD (time of death) according to Dr Bond
03.00 Cox seeing that the light was out in Kelly´s 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 Kelly´s room
03.00 Cox seeing that the light was out in Kelly´s 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?

Let´s 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,

How do you know it was the killer who started the fire? What is your source for this?

And just out of interest, what is your response to Post 238? Of course, if you find the question too difficult please feel free to ignore the post.

[Errata]

Can you imagine how easier this conversation would be if there was somehow the mechanism for conveying "Oh, my bad, I screwed up when I said this." or "You know I never thought of that, I will take that into account."

I know we can't do that because seas will rise and skies will fall, but what a wonderful world it would be.

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

please let me try and explain this.

In attempting to use Rigor Mortis to establish a possible time of death all that is relevant is the stage of Rigor Mortis the body is in when examining the body.

Rigor Mortis is detected and assessed by:

Attempting to lift the eyelids, depressing of the jaw, movement of the joints and noting the degree of resistance.

If Rigor Mortis is not present complete movement is possible.

If Rigor Mortis has set in there is resistance to movement, but is still possible.

If the maximum degree is reached all the body parts are rigid, the major joints are fixed, fingers and toes may be fixed in a flexed position

This information was all known and used in 1888.



I am therefore confused why the following comments are made:

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

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


Such methods are not needed nor used.


You then ask

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


Not in that particular post no, but yes I have in others


and then you ask

“You dropped the last bit considering TOD. Why?”

Because in that particular post I was discussing Rigor Mortis as an indicator of TOD, which I do not believe Bond is doing.


I am more than happy to discuss this


Bonds full statement with regards to TOD at 13 Millers Court:


"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.
The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines.
It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder."



In the first few lines Bonds is very clear in saying that he cannot give a reliable TOD based on Rigor Mortis.

He then goes on to discuss the temperature of the body and the digestion of food.

Since the degree of digestion can only tell him how long before death the food was eaten, this cannot help him establish a TOD; unless he knows the time of the last meal. There is no source to suggest he did.

Given that he had already said it is difficult to give a time of death based on Rigor Mortis, it would appear that he is using Body Temperature to arrive at a time of death.

However this is a procedure which depends on the ambient temperatures being recorded and internal body temperatures taken.

Bond does say:

“the body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock”.

He does not however give any record of a temperature.
Given the level of detail in his reports on 13 Millers Court, if he had taken a body temperature why is such a detail not recorded in his reports?

In this case one must also remember that Kelly had been gutted, with the majority of her body core removed, partially skinned, had muscle mass removed and lost much blood. All reducing body temperature.
To get a time of death in 1888 from body temperature in these circumstances would be extremely unlikely.



Before discussing establishing a TOD based on Rigor Mortis, I would like to look at Bonds statement again

It is interesting that he says:

"6-12 hours before rigidity sets in".


I interperate this has the period after death until the maximum degree of rigidity, the “Rigid” stage as it is sometimes referred to, occurs.

This would put Bond's estimation of the timings of Rigor Mortis roughly in line with the available sources



Niderkorn, 1872 & 1882
Brouardel – Death and Sudden Death pages 63-74 - original publication 1894, English version 1902

This also agrees with a more modern source by H J Mallach , published in 1971, but using data covering the period 1811-1969




I would now like to discuss estimating TOD by Rigor Mortis


If at the beginning of an examination there is no indication of any stiffening, it means either Rigor Mortis has not yet set in or it has passed.

If Rigor Mortis has set in, the estimation of time of death will be at least the time for the onset period, but it is not possible to say how far it has advanced.

If the degree of Rigor Mortis continues to develop during the examination and does not reach the maximum degree of rigidity, then time of death will be less than the 12 hours which is and was the accepted time for “Rigid” stage to occur.

If during the Examination, the degree of Rigor Mortis reaches the “Rigid” state, assesed as at the start of post, one can then set a TOD of approx 12 hours before that point.


Let us now look at the case in hand.

Looking the available literature the average period until onset seems to be from 3-6 hours after death, let us use 6, it actually does not matter which figures you use for the onset period in attempting to determine TOD.

Bond starts the examination at approximately 2pm. The body is showing signs of Rigor Mortis:

“Rigor Mortis had set in,”

This indicates to him that death occurred at least 6 hours before ( using 6 hours, but we know this can be less).
However it has not reached the “Rigid” stage, so death is less than 12 hours previous to starting the examination.

Bond next says in relation to Rigor Mortis

“but increased during the progress of the examination. “


This indicates that the “Rigid” stage had still not been reach, thus death was less than 12 hours before this information was recorded.

It is unfortunate that he does not actually specify if the "Rigid" stage was reached by the end of the examination of not.

The examination started at 2pm and finished approximately around 4pm

This indicates that Time of Death has indicated by Rigor Mortis had not occurred at the time he suggested:

"one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder"

But at some undetermined time after.


regards

[GUT]

I agree with pretty much all you say Steve, except one thing jumps out a me, Bond uses the terms "Set in" both for the state of Rigor when he commenced his examination and fo what the 6-12 hours refers to.

So it is at least arguable that the 6-12 hours goes back to the start of his examination, which equates to between about 2:00 and 8:00 am.

If the 6-12 is till Rigor is set (as opposed to sets in) then the time is even later.

[GUT]

I suspect (but no more than suspect) that he mentioned that it continued to set in during his examination to indicate tha the degree of Rigor at the start of his examination was the beginning, not the"relaxing" of the Rigor.

[Elamarna]

I agree with pretty much all you say Steve, except one thing jumps out a me, Bond uses the terms "Set in" both for the state of Rigor when he commenced his examination and fo what the 6-12 hours refers to.

So it is at least arguable that the 6-12 hours goes back to the start of his examination, which equates to between about 2:00 and 8:00 am.

If the 6-12 is till Rigor is set (as opposed to sets in) then the time is even later.

Noted GUT

several points, the period for full rigor to be reached is accepted to be approx 12 hours after death, such was recorded in 1872, 1882, 1894 , 1971 and present day sources.

Therefore if the Body was not in Full Degree rigidity at the start examination it cannot be backdated to 2am. if it is still not in that state at the end of the examination it pushes the time of death later in the morning


On the issue of "set in" Bond starts his report by saying:

"Rigor Mortis had set in."


The later comment says :

"6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in."


The key to interpreting this is the word rigidity.

The body does not become rigid until the maximum degree of Rigor Mortis has set in. This is often referred to as the "Rigid" or "Rigor" stage.

The body can remain in this state for many hours or even days,after which Rigidity disappears and the body become flexible again.

Of course it can be interpreted differently, but such an interpretation goes counter to the know time scales for Rigor Mortis.

hope that helps

steve

[Elamarna]

I suspect (but no more than suspect) that he mentioned that it continued to set in during his examination to indicate tha the degree of Rigor at the start of his examination was the beginning, not the"relaxing" of the Rigor.

It also indicates that the death had occurred a few hours before, we cannot know exactly, but we certainly do know she was dead 3 hours before the examination began.
If we knew when the body reached the "Rigid" stage, we would have a much better idea of TOD. Unfortunately we do not, there is no way around that.

steve

[GUT]

It also indicates that the death had occurred a few hours before, we cannot know exactly, but we certainly do know she was dead 3 hours before the examination began.
If we knew when the body reached the "Rigid" stage, we would have a much better idea of TOD. Unfortunately we do not, there is no way around that.

steve

Yep, the same problem we come across over and again, not enough information.

When I read what Bond says we have a TOD of between about 1:00 or 2:00 am and maybe 10:00 or 11:00 am. The late time if he meant rigor fully set (not just set in) 6 to 12 hours earlier and still not fully set when he concluded his examination around 4:00 pm. Six hours before 4:00 pm is 10:00 am, allow another hour, for it not being fully set at 4:00pm and we are as late as 11:00 am.

So in a nutshell, doesn't really help much.

[Elamarna]

Yep, the same problem we come across over and again, not enough information.

When I read what Bond says we have a TOD of between about 1:00 or 2:00 am and maybe 10:00 or 11:00 am. The late time if he meant rigor fully set (not just set in) 6 to 12 hours earlier and still not fully set when he concluded his examination around 4:00 pm. Six hours before 4:00 pm is 10:00 am, allow another hour, for it not being fully set at 4:00pm and we are as late as 11:00 am.

So in a nutshell, doesn't really help much.

Yes GUT, thats the whole point we have been trying to make.
If the body was fully rigid at 4pm a time of around 4am would be probably.

However it is not a precise method of establishing TOD, all the times used for when a stage begins are approximate.

steve