Let there be light!

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Given the obvious problems in accurately determining time of death, even with modern techniques, and difficulties in interpreting Dr Bond's report due to lack of clarity, as you correctly highlighted, do you think we can even assess how probable it is that Kelly was alive after, say, 9:00 am?

And, of course, there are numerous variables to consider, a number of which are unknown, such as the ambient temperature at time of death.

Then there are the exceptional cases, such as the example I gave of the woman who died after overdosing on aspirin, and going into full rigor mortis within minutes of being pronounced dead.

It's certainly a bit of a conundrum.

John

In the sources from the 19th Century, it is clear that RM could be observed to start form the 3rd to the 6th hours after Death.

Given that Bond observed RM at 2pm this could be backdated to give a possible time of death from 8am to 11am approximately. Of course we know the victim, who ever she was was dead by 11am

Therefore it does not rule out death at 9.00 am. Using the Bond Source it is certainly possible.

This is the problem with not having a time for the "Rigid" stage.

regards

steve

[David Orsam]

Rigor Mortis is the red herring in Dr Bond's report. The basis for his conclusion of 1-2am was nothing more than that the body was very cold at 2pm which, sticking his finger in the air, meant that he felt he could say it was "pretty certain" the victim had been dead for 12 hours. It wasn't very scientific.

He then tried to justify his conclusion based on the stomach contents by using an assumption that the victim had taken dinner at about 10pm. This was nothing more than a guess taking into account the average dinner time. Based on the rate of digestion indicating that death took place 3-4 after dinner, the doctor thought this was consistent with a time of death of 1-2am.

That's how he did it.

[Elamarna]

Rigor Mortis is the red herring in Dr Bond's report. The basis for his conclusion of 1-2am was nothing more than that the body was very cold at 2pm which, sticking his finger in the air, meant that he felt he could say it was "pretty certain" the victim had been dead for 12 hours. It wasn't very scientific.

He then tried to justify his conclusion based on the stomach contents by using an assumption that the victim had taken dinner at about 10pm. This was nothing more than a guess taking into account the average dinner time. Based on the rate of digestion indicating that death took place 3-4 after dinner, the doctor thought this was consistent with a time of death of 1-2am.

That's how he did it.

David

I agree with that, that is my analysis of Bond's statement too.

Steve

[Pierre]

Having the stomach for hypothesizing about the stomach

David

I agree with that, that is my analysis of Bond's statement too.

Steve

And here is mine:

Dr Bond said he found the remains of a meal in the stomach. The stomach is a part of the digestion system, where food is been digested. It is like a ”digestion machine” where food is processed going from the stomach and into the intestines.

The meal was partly digested, according to Bond, since it was still in the stomach. As we will soon see in my analysis – the expression in the Bond-source, ”partly digested food” will be the main problem in trying to find a good hypothesis for the TOD.

So, if we would like to estimate TOD (like Bond did) from his statement about ”partly digested food” - among other historical data - we could try and find the point in time when she took the meal.

What are the possible hypotheses for the time of the meal? I guess we could try a lot of hypotheses as to the point(s) in time when the victim ”must”/”could” have (and so on) eaten the food found in the stomach by Dr Bond. So letīs try some hypothesizing! But not just randomly. I would like to see if we could answer this question:

Could we test some hypotheses to get an answer for the question about TOD, including the statement of Dr Bond about the food in the stomach?

Hypothesis 1) ”Eating before going home”

Victim took the meal when she was out, before going home a quarter to midnight/about midnight (Cox-sources). ”When she was out” is defined as 10-11 pm.

Meal is lying in the stomach, being digested for 3-4 hours (Bondīs estimate). TOD = 02.00.

The ”digestion machine” is stopped 02 am due to death. The meal partly remains in the stomach and have started to enter the small intestines.

Dr Bond finds the meal in the stomach as well as scattered over the intestines.

The hypothesis can be corroborated by

a) The witness accounts of victim having been out (Cox) (> possibility)
b) Dr Bondīs TOD at 2 am. (>established fact that: Bond gave ”1 or 2” in the source)
c) The observation of Dr Bond during the post mortem examination: meal is still in stomach (established fact, no tendency in source).
d) ”Oh, murder!” being heard at about 03.45 (established fact: independent sources, no tendency) making TOD at 02.00 possible, when the scream is interpreted as having been produced by a witness entering the room (interpretation: based on MO for a killer who seeks discovery of victims)
e) coincides with possible light time period (> possibility)

The hypothesis can be contradicted by: (?)

Hypothesis 2) ”Eating in the room”

Victim had the meal at home between midnight and 1 pm. Meal lying in stomach being digested for 3-4 hours = TOD 3-5.

The hypothesis can be corroborated by:

a) The witness accounts of victim being at home (Cox) (>possibility)
b) Light availabe during eating (>possibility for eating)
c) The observation of Dr Bond during the post mortem examination: (established fact, no tendency in source).
d) ”Oh, murder!” being heard at about 03.45 making TOD at 03.45 possible, when the scream is interpreted as having been produced by the victim ( interpretation: based on a victim defining the event)

The hypothesis can be contradicted by:

a) Dr Bond giving TOD as 1 or 2. (Unknown reliability for statement)

Hypothesis 3) Eating at any time from 03.30-10.45.

”Victim had the meal during the first possible light time period at 03.30-04.00 or after 04.00 at any time up to 10.45.

The hypothesis can be corroborated by:

a) The witness accounts of victim being at home (Cox) (>possibility)
b) Light availabe during eating in some time period/periods (>possibility for eating)
c) The observation of Dr Bond during the post mortem examination: (established fact, no tendency in source).

The hypothesis can be contradicted by:

a) Eating at 03.45-04.00 not possible if dead. ”Oh, murder!” being heard at about 03.45.( interpretation: based on a scream of murder correlated to a murder.)
b) Statement of Mrs Maxwell: Victim had vomited in the street. Could the meal have been in the street given the fact that Dr Bond observed it in the stomach? (Questioned as fact: Maxwell-source: strong tendency, low reliability. Established fact: Bond-source: no tendency, high reliability.)
c) Could the victim have had the meal after vomiting in the street? To short time for digestion. (Interpretation of ”could have” - a ”could-have-question” that works!)

Question for conclusion: Which hypothesis has the highest amount of supporting data?

Hypothesis 1, number of:

”Possibilities” = 2
Established facts: = 3
Interpretations: = 1
Contradictions = 0
Questioned as facts: 0

Hypothesis 2, number of:

”Possibilities” = 2
Established facts: = 1
Interpretations: = 1
Contradictions = 1 (low reliability)
Questioned as facts: = 0

Hypothesis 3, number of:

”Possibilities” = 2
Established facts: = 1
Interpretations: = 2
Contradictions: = 3
Questioned as facts: 1

Now, letīs assign a number to each of these items above:

Possibility: 1
Established fact: 3
Interpretation: 1
Contradiction: -1
Questioned as a fact: - 2

And now we are going to sum up the points for Hypothesis 1, 2 & 3:

1: 12 points
2: 5 points
3: 1 point

Conclusion: Hypothesis No 1 has the highest amount of supporting data!

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;375619]

1. in her sleep- it has been suggested has it not that the killer may have been a client, whom killed her while she slept?

However we can not know which is correct , therefore it is best to use Model 1 above, and assume no physiological changes which may have increased the onset of RM.

Hi Steve.

and if model 1 is the correct model:

Who was it that cried out "Oh, Murder!"?

Regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

Pierre, you forget your own teachings about reliable sources when you say things about it not being possible to eat when dead or that the vomit could not be hers as it was in her stomach, in the room, and she was dead.
You are presuming too much
The meal was in the stomach of a dead body in Room 13. That is all that's verified

[DJA]

This post-mortem report was written by Dr. Thomas Bond after he examined the remains of Mary Jane Kelly. The report was lost until 1987, when it was returned anonymously to Scotland Yard.

In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines.

[Pierre]

This post-mortem report was written by Dr. Thomas Bond after he examined the remains of Mary Jane Kelly. The report was lost until 1987, when it was returned anonymously to Scotland Yard.

In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines.

Yes, and reading this report, one could understand his problems when he should give a TOD.

[John G]

And here is mine:

Dr Bond said he found the remains of a meal in the stomach. The stomach is a part of the digestion system, where food is been digested. It is like a ”digestion machine” where food is processed going from the stomach and into the intestines.

The meal was partly digested, according to Bond, since it was still in the stomach. As we will soon see in my analysis – the expression in the Bond-source, ”partly digested food” will be the main problem in trying to find a good hypothesis for the TOD.

So, if we would like to estimate TOD (like Bond did) from his statement about ”partly digested food” - among other historical data - we could try and find the point in time when she took the meal.

What are the possible hypotheses for the time of the meal? I guess we could try a lot of hypotheses as to the point(s) in time when the victim ”must”/”could” have (and so on) eaten the food found in the stomach by Dr Bond. So letīs try some hypothesizing! But not just randomly. I would like to see if we could answer this question:

Could we test some hypotheses to get an answer for the question about TOD, including the statement of Dr Bond about the food in the stomach?

Hypothesis 1) ”Eating before going home”

Victim took the meal when she was out, before going home a quarter to midnight/about midnight (Cox-sources). ”When she was out” is defined as 10-11 pm.

Meal is lying in the stomach, being digested for 3-4 hours (Bondīs estimate). TOD = 02.00.

The ”digestion machine” is stopped 02 am due to death. The meal partly remains in the stomach and have started to enter the small intestines.

Dr Bond finds the meal in the stomach as well as scattered over the intestines.

The hypothesis can be corroborated by

a) The witness accounts of victim having been out (Cox) (> possibility)
b) Dr Bondīs TOD at 2 am. (>established fact that: Bond gave ”1 or 2” in the source)
c) The observation of Dr Bond during the post mortem examination: meal is still in stomach (established fact, no tendency in source).
d) ”Oh, murder!” being heard at about 03.45 (established fact: independent sources, no tendency) making TOD at 02.00 possible, when the scream is interpreted as having been produced by a witness entering the room (interpretation: based on MO for a killer who seeks discovery of victims)
e) coincides with possible light time period (> possibility)

The hypothesis can be contradicted by: (?)

Hypothesis 2) ”Eating in the room”

Victim had the meal at home between midnight and 1 pm. Meal lying in stomach being digested for 3-4 hours = TOD 3-5.

The hypothesis can be corroborated by:

a) The witness accounts of victim being at home (Cox) (>possibility)
b) Light availabe during eating (>possibility for eating)
c) The observation of Dr Bond during the post mortem examination: (established fact, no tendency in source).
d) ”Oh, murder!” being heard at about 03.45 making TOD at 03.45 possible, when the scream is interpreted as having been produced by the victim ( interpretation: based on a victim defining the event)

The hypothesis can be contradicted by:

a) Dr Bond giving TOD as 1 or 2. (Unknown reliability for statement)

Hypothesis 3) Eating at any time from 03.30-10.45.

”Victim had the meal during the first possible light time period at 03.30-04.00 or after 04.00 at any time up to 10.45.

The hypothesis can be corroborated by:

a) The witness accounts of victim being at home (Cox) (>possibility)
b) Light availabe during eating in some time period/periods (>possibility for eating)
c) The observation of Dr Bond during the post mortem examination: (established fact, no tendency in source).

The hypothesis can be contradicted by:

a) Eating at 03.45-04.00 not possible if dead. ”Oh, murder!” being heard at about 03.45.( interpretation: based on a scream of murder correlated to a murder.)
b) Statement of Mrs Maxwell: Victim had vomited in the street. Could the meal have been in the street given the fact that Dr Bond observed it in the stomach? (Questioned as fact: Maxwell-source: strong tendency, low reliability. Established fact: Bond-source: no tendency, high reliability.)
c) Could the victim have had the meal after vomiting in the street? To short time for digestion. (Interpretation of ”could have” - a ”could-have-question” that works!)

Question for conclusion: Which hypothesis has the highest amount of supporting data?

Hypothesis 1, number of:

”Possibilities” = 2
Established facts: = 3
Interpretations: = 1
Contradictions = 0
Questioned as facts: 0

Hypothesis 2, number of:

”Possibilities” = 2
Established facts: = 1
Interpretations: = 1
Contradictions = 1 (low reliability)
Questioned as facts: = 0

Hypothesis 3, number of:

”Possibilities” = 2
Established facts: = 1
Interpretations: = 2
Contradictions: = 3
Questioned as facts: 1

Now, letīs assign a number to each of these items above:

Possibility: 1
Established fact: 3
Interpretation: 1
Contradiction: -1
Questioned as a fact: - 2

And now we are going to sum up the points for Hypothesis 1, 2 & 3:

1: 12 points
2: 5 points
3: 1 point

Conclusion: Hypothesis No 1 has the highest amount of supporting data!

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

To be fair, you've made a reasonable attempt at this but there are certain things I would disagree with. For instance, as I've pointed out, and as Steve and David have also pointed out, Dr Bond's estimate of time of death was simply guesswork, probably wrong, and therefore not objective (in fact, his estimates of time of death based on digestion were certainly wrong). Therefore, the source may be valid, but the opinion given by the source isn't.

You seem to be suggesting the killer may have shouted "oh murder" because he wanted the body to be discovered. Now, whilst I agree that he may have wanted to create shock value, this would have been achieved, and was achieved, as soon as the body was discovered by Thomas Boyer and seen by other witnesses

Therefore, on a risk v reward basis, he had no need to attract attention to the murder, and thereby himself, at say 3:45, particularly as this would have greatly increased the chances of getting caught.

[John G]

This post-mortem report was written by Dr. Thomas Bond after he examined the remains of Mary Jane Kelly. The report was lost until 1987, when it was returned anonymously to Scotland Yard.

In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines.

Was the food definitely identified as fish and potatoes?

[DJA]

Either she ate more than once or that is the one meal.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;375674]Hi Pierre,

To be fair, you've made a reasonable attempt at this but there are certain things I would disagree with. For instance, as I've pointed out, and as Steve and David have also pointed out, Dr Bond's estimate of time of death was simply guesswork, probably wrong, and therefore not objective (in fact, his estimates of time of death based on digestion were certainly wrong). Therefore, the source may be valid, but the opinion given by the source isn't.

Hi John,

One could of course also exclude Dr Bond entirely from all source analyses.

You seem to be suggesting the killer may have shouted "oh murder" because he wanted the body to be discovered. Now, whilst I agree that he may have wanted to create shock value, this would have been achieved, and was achieved, as soon as the body was discovered by Thomas Boyer and seen by other witnesses

No. Not the killer. A woman, It was a woman who cried out "Oh, murder!". She came into the room at about 03.45. Who could she have been?

Therefore, on a risk v reward basis, he had no need to attract attention to the murder, and thereby himself, at say 3:45, particularly as this would have greatly increased the chances of getting caught.

There is no evidence for the murderer still having been at the murder site at that time.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375669]

Hi Steve.

and if model 1 is the correct model:

Who was it that cried out "Oh, Murder!"?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

I will answer both post here.

Your 1st post has errors regarding biology: digestion does not cease at the moment of death, the digestive system is not a "digestive machine".
to describe it as such shows a basic lack of understand of the subject.


The entire hypotheses cherry picks, for instance, it complete ignores the statement of George Hutchingson, it does not matter if you accept it as being reliable or not, you cannot as a good Scientist/Historian, just not mention it, considering it has a direct bearing on the timings involved!

I fundamentally disagree with the analysis and assumptions used in the 2 posts, and obviously with the conclusions drawn.

The post #289 appears to be trying to set a time for the last meal, by backtracking from the TOD which is proposed in the first post on this thread, this despite the mounting arguments that 2am is not correct.

Has I said earlier, we will not agree on this issue,

goodnight


Steve

[DJA]

Was the food definitely identified as fish and potatoes?

Mighta had a pickled onion for an entree.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;375680][QUOTE=Pierre;375669]


Pierre

I will answer both post here.

Your 1st post has errors regarding biology: digestion does not cease at the moment of death, the digestive system is not a "digestive machine".
to describe it as such shows a basic lack of understand of the subject.

I am not counting "moments". So that is no problem.

The entire hypotheses cherry picks, for instance, it complete ignores the statement of George Hutchingson,

it does not matter if you accept it as being reliable or not,

Of course it does.

you cannot as a good Scientist/Historian, just not mention it, considering it has a direct bearing on the timings involved!

Why should I mention a "witness" who was not living in Millerīs Court / Dorset Street, was not giving a statement on 9 November and who was not at the inquest?

I fundamentally disagree with the analysis and assumptions used in the 2 posts, and obviously with the conclusions drawn.

Of course you do, Steve. Of course you do.

The post #289 appears to be trying to set a time for the last meal, by backtracking from the TOD which is proposed in the first post on this thread, this despite the mounting arguments that 2am is not correct.

I do not trust the arguments on this site.

Has I said earlier, we will not agree on this issue,
goodnight
Steve

Regards, Pierre