Let there be light!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;375810]Possible.

But I would think if that were the case she would have more time to scream out more and or struggle.

I agree with this interpretation. There is nothing in the sources contradicting it.

I think the broken window would be enough to make it seem like it came from the court.

Actually: There is no statament in the primary sources giving that the scream should have come from the court.

With the cuts to the corner of her bed sheet and possible defensive wounds point that she was attacked in bed, with the killer possibly putting the sheet over her face before cutting her throat, giving her just a small amount of time to cry out.

I agree with this interpretations. There is nothing in the sources contradicting it.

And now we will look closer on the primary sources from the police investigation and the inquest (you find the transcriptions of them in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner):

What statements do the sources give us as to the estimates of the location of the scream?

Prater (inquest source) says it "seemed to come from close by". (She says nothing about the location in the police report).

Lewis (police investigation source) says it "seemed to be not far away,...".

Lewis (inquest source) says it "seemed to come from the direction of deceaseds room".

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=packers stem;375807]Hi Michael

Isn't the obvious that as Prater knew the shout of exclamation, and I agree with exclamation,came from outside it did actually come from outside as someone pulled back the coat to open the door?

Hi Packers Stem,

No it is not "obvious", since there actually is no statament in the primary sources (statements of Prater in the police investigation and at the inquest) giving that the scream should have come from the court.

If it was a shout from the bed,or elsewhere within the room Prater would have known it was from within the room.

We cannot know what Prater "would have known". It is not in the sources.

When you live in an upstairs flat the difference between a voice in the flat below compared to outside is obvious even with the kind of soundproofing and double glazing we have today.

???

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Let there be obfuscation

Pierre, I do hope that when your solution is finally revealed (the world waits with bated breath), your solution is not going to contain a single assumption, a solitary guess, or one even minor leap? I mean, judging by the tone you adopt on these boards it can only be that your solution is based absolutely on things that are spelled out clearly and unequivocally in the sources available in 1888, right? In other words, the sources available to researchers actually contain clear, precise information that leads ineluctably to the identity of the Whitechapel murderer?

Wow, how did all those idiots like SPE or Paul Begg miss this information? Amateurs!

I do hope your book will be called "Sourcey Jack".

PS - you have all been deviating from sacred source material. Bond claimed Kelly was killed at 1 or 2am. He was very precise. She was probably killed at either precisely 1am OR at precisely 2am. You have no authority as a "historian" to disregard his precision. He could've said sometime between one and two in the morning, but the source material doesn't show that he did. He was clear. We cannot change the sources, we cannot play around with guesswork. He said 1am or 2am. This has entirely invalidated my own deductions, which required a time of death of 1.42am. But I cannot ignore these primary sources, and they are clear. I must go where the sources lead me. Like a complete dickhole.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't know what you mean when you say that I "tend to believe what I want". I'm simply looking at the evidence. The evidence was that a cry in the night was not uncommon. The evidence of a witness (Maxwell) was that she spoke to Mary in the morning. So it points in the direction of Mary being murdered after speaking to Maxwell. I don't know if that's what happened but to firmly believe the opposite seems to me to be perverse.

Thanks for offering an example of my previous point. Maxwell was told as she made her statement that her evidence disagrees with all the other evidence in this case, she was essentially warned off from giving it. The evidence suggests that she didnt know Mary at all save for one or two passing "morning's" in 4 months, no other witness corroborated that she knew Mary, and the witnesses that lived in the court knew Mary, spoke with Mary, and knew the habits of the court. Maxwell was then and is still now the Kelly equivalent of Mary Malcolm. Irrelevant.

I suppose though somehow we agree on one point here...that the killer did not start a large fire to see what he was doing, or to burn clothing or some other evidence. In your and Maxwells scenario, she was killed in the morning, in daylight hours. Certainly no need for fire then, and it would be noticed also.

In my scenario, with supporting trustworthy witness testimony and physical evidence, Mary was likely killed sometime after the call heard by 2 witnesses at approx 3:45am. No one came forward later to claim that voice and only 1 person in this story couldnt have,... it sounded "as if from the court", and the evidence in the fireplace does not indicate a large fire starting after that point in time. In fact we have 2 witnesses evidence stating that the room was dark and quiet by 1:30.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael
Isn't the obvious that as Prater knew the shout of exclamation, and I agree with exclamation,came from outside it did actually come from outside as someone pulled back the coat to open the door?
If it was a shout from the bed,or elsewhere within the room Prater would have known it was from within the room.
When you live in an upstairs flat the difference between a voice in the flat below compared to outside is obvious even with the kind of soundproofing and double glazing we have today.
She would have heard the shout coming from the direction of her window to suggest it was outside

I suggest that someone tapped on Marys door or window just prior to that call out, and that Diddles awoke,.. Mary rose, annoyed and hungover, to see who was at the door. The fact that someone believed they could gain entrance by doing that even at almost 4am suggests someone well known to Mary. The coat didnt block any access to the door, it hung from a wall hook and covered one of the broken panes in the window closest to the room corner in the court.

I believe, and have for years now, that Mary opened the door and made an exclamation in Victorian terms that might be synonymous with todays "Oh-****", or more gutterly, "**** me". Pissed off..tired...and hungover, Mary leaves the door open and heads back to the bed, but she now lies on her right side and moves closer to the partition wall. Because she is expecting someone to slip in behind her on that small bed. Someone does.....and a bit later when she nods, he slips a knife under her chin...likely with his left arm based on the positioning, and begins his murder. Splatter on the wall, no time for screams or sounds. He is pinning her to some degree with his own weight. After she stops squirming he gets off her and the bed, and rolls her onto her back.

Sorry if that seems a little like fiction, but I believe there is evidence that we have today that would substantiate just that scenario.

Conclusions? Mary was killed by someone well known to her. If he is also the mythical Ripper, then he has broken with the traditions of killing people unknown to him and exposed himself to close scrutiny, historically, for this night...and all of the Canonical nights. If he is this serial killer everyone claims existed, then why would he lead the police right to him? Isnt the line on the research of modern serial killers that they taunt, tease and brag, but strive to conceal who they are?

[David Orsam]

Maxwell was told as she made her statement that her evidence disagrees with all the other evidence in this case, she was essentially warned off from giving it.

She wasn't, in fact, warned that her evidence "disagrees with all the other evidence in this case" nor was she essentially "warned off from giving it". She was told to be careful by the coroner because her evidence was "different to other people's" That is undoubtedly because the coroner relied on the medical evidence which we now know to be unreliable and probably also assumed that the scream in the night fixed the time of the murder.

The coroner's remarks were unfair because Maxwell's evidence was not really different to other people's but the fact that she insisted that her evidence was correct, despite these unfair remarks by a person in authority, should give us pause.

I don't know how you think that Mrs Maxwell's evidence that she had spoken to Kelly twice could be corroborated by any of the witnesses, or whether any attempt was made by the police to corroborate it, but it was never undermined by any of the evidence in the case.

Nor do I know why you think I agree with you that the killer did not start a large fire to see what he was doing. I have pointed out that, with curtains covering the windows, the room might well have been in darkness throughout the dull morning.

Considering that you tell us that you have a detailed "scenario" in which time of death was 3.45am, whereas I don't have any set idea at all as to the time of death, then perhaps it is actually you who tends to believe what you want, not me.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;385534]

The coroner's remarks were unfair because Maxwell's evidence was not really different to other people's

Hi David,

Exactly what do you draw this from, which are the sources?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Exactly what do you draw this from, which are the sources?

The sources are MJ/SP/C/NE/0376/001-011 - Inquest papers for Mary Jane Kelly held at the London Metropolitan Archives.

[Pierre]

The sources are MJ/SP/C/NE/0376/001-011 - Inquest papers for Mary Jane Kelly held at the London Metropolitan Archives.

Nice try, David.

This is what you said:

"The coroner's remarks were unfair because Maxwell's evidence was not really different to other people's".

So which are the exact sources that you refer to when you say "not really different to other people´s"?

What specific people?

What evidence of those specific people?

Which parts of the inquest are you referring to?

Which statements of other people?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Nice try, David.

What do you mean by "Nice try"? You asked me a question and I answered it.

[David Orsam]

This is what you said:

"The coroner's remarks were unfair because Maxwell's evidence was not really different to other people's".

So which are the exact sources that you refer to when you say "not really different to [B]other people´s"?

I know what I said Pierre. I trust you have read my entire post and understood it.*

*I'm not hopeful.

[David Orsam]

What specific people?

What evidence of those specific people?

Which parts of the inquest are you referring to?

Which statements of other people?

Regards, Pierre

What specific people? - All the other witnesses at the inquest of Mary Jane Kelly.

What evidence of those specific people? - All of it.

Which parts of the inquest are you referring to? - All of it.

Which statements of other people? - All of them.

[Pierre]

I know what I said Pierre. I trust you have read my entire post and understood it.*

*I'm not hopeful.

You are completely ignoring the questions, something which is understandable, since you have no answers.

That is OK, David. You often seem very sure of your own thinking and you often try to give others the impression that you are right when you are wrong.

You do not know which statements of which people you were talking about. You were merely talking.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

You are completely ignoring the questions, something which is understandable, since you have no answers.

Which questions have I ignored? Do you mean all the ones I answered individually?

[David Orsam]

That is OK, David. You often seem very sure of your own thinking and you often try to give others the impression that you are right when you are wrong.

You do not know which statements of which people you were talking about. You were merely talking.

Did you actually read my post #351 Pierre? The reason I ask is because the answers to all the questions you have asked me are clearly contained within that post. But you have to read that post first and understand it.

If you have difficulty in understanding the post let me know the problem and I'll be happy to help.