The fire in the grate explained

[David Orsam]

There are a lot of problems with the sources and a lot of problems with the methods used.

That sentence does seem to encapsulate very neatly your time on this forum Pierre.

[Karl]

Well having ANY medical knowledge is having SOME medical knowledge. How do we know he did not take the easiest route? Which coincidentally is irrelevant to knowing if he had any medical knowledge or not.

He went in through the victim's front, mangling her intestines in the process.

I would argue to remove a kidney in the dark in what 15 mins without doing much damage to neighbouring organs DOES in fact assume a certain level of medical/anatomical knowledge/skill.

Or dumb luck. As it is, however, both the uterus as well as the intestines were damaged, and there was feces all over in the abdominal cavity. Missing the other organs isn't really that much of a feat.

To me the Doctors etc of the day who have commented on this refuse to say, IMO (nothing more) that JtR did not have surgical skill etc because they did not want to point a finger at one of their own, they closed ranks as possibly did the Police.. however this is just my opinion but to think JtR had no anatomical/medical knowledge/skill to me is absurd. Whether he was a doctor or surgeon or medical student I can't say.

I would be very surprised if he was either. I see nothing in any of the mutilation which points to medical knowledge specifically. Any butcher or hunter would have done a better job, and a surgeon certainly would. Assuming, in the role of a killer, they wanted to do a good job. As it is, JtR did not do a good job at all for a hunter, butcher or surgeon. Doesn't mean he did not belong to any of these professions, but there is certainly no indication that he did, either.

[Henry Flower]

Pierre,

Your reply just told me everything I need to know about you, thank you.

Evasion, straw-man, evasion.

You're not a historian. You're a charlatan. No-one should feel any need to suffer your lecturing and your homilies on correct research methodology. You turned up announcing you thought you'd identified him, and ever since then you've been fishing around trying to bolster an obviously suspect-led quest, getting other people to supply you with the fruits of their own diligent research. You're not a historian, so I politely suggest you stop making an absolute fool of yourself with your asinine posturing and your grating pretensions.

Yeah, go whine to the moderators, like I care. Take care, cupcake x

[Michael W Richards]

How is MJK there being "gossipy about her relationship with Barnett" when she is talking about another man named Joe?



In her written statement, Julia makes clear that her information about the MJK/Barnett relationship that you have cited came from Barnett himself, thus: "I knew the man who lived down stairs (Joe Barnett) he is called Joe, he lived with her until recently. I have heard him say that he did not like her going out on the streets..." (underlined for your convenience)

And again, in the final three sentences, how is MJK there being "gossipy about her relationship with Barnett" when she is talking about another man named Joe?




No, for the reasons stated above.

Julia also said Mary said this...."She broke the windows a few weeks ago whilst she was drunk, she told me she was very fond of another man named Joe and he had often ill-used her because she cohabited with Joe [Barnett]."

I used the emboldened method to ensure that you were paying attention. Since it seems from the vast majority of your replies to anyone here that you deem yourself to be some kind of de-facto guru on the cases and the facts, maybe you should use all of them.

Being unpleasant seems to come so easy to you, must be a talent acquired over a lifetime. From what Ive read of your dismissals you seem to equate your ability to recite data with the ability to logically interpret it accurately. It should be noted that a parrot can also recite but I wouldn't expect it to know whether what it was repeating was accurate.

[Michael W Richards]

The fire in the grate was at best warm embers by the time the police entered the room, ergo, there was a fire in that fireplace within the previous 24 hours or so. There is NOTHING that compels us to believe that a "large fire" was lit at anytime that evening after midnight save the comments by Abberline....which were in fact just speculation. The spout solder could have been melted off at any time previous to that night, and the items found in the fire ashes were only partially consumed....which in and of itself suggests that they were placed on a low fire at best.

[David Orsam]

Julia also said Mary said this...."She broke the windows a few weeks ago whilst she was drunk, she told me she was very fond of another man named Joe and he had often ill-used her because she cohabited with Joe [Barnett]."

That is certainly evidence of Mary speaking to Julia about some things she (Mary) had done but what I was asking you was how was Mary being gossipy about her relationship with Barnett?

I will ignore your nonsense about me.

[Paddy]

Questions.....

Does anybody know what happened to the overcoat that was supposed to be covering part of the window ? Bowyer said he pulled the curtain back didn't he ?
I also wonder if it was ever considered that the murderer may have burnt his own coat or clothing and took other clothing ?

Pat..................................

[jerryd]

Does anybody know what happened to the overcoat that was supposed to be covering part of the window ? Bowyer said he pulled the curtain back didn't he ?
I also wonder if it was ever considered that the murderer may have burnt his own coat or clothing and took other clothing ?

Pat..................................

Hi Pat,

Maria Harvey stated she saw the black over-coat in another room in the court after the murder. A discussion was had years ago about this coat. I always felt it meant a room in Miller's Court, however, Michael Richards made a valid remark that it could have been a room in the court in terms of court room at the inquest. If it was in fact a room in Miller's court, it needs some explaining.

[Joshua Rogan]

Maria said "I saw the black overcoat in a room in the court on Friday afternoon"

As the inquest was held on Monday 12th, surely she can only have meant she saw it on Friday 9th, the day of the murder. Presumably the police used one or more of the houses in Miller's Court to interview residents and potential witnesses, and showed it to her then to confirm it was one of the items she claimed to have left with Mary.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Pat,

Maria Harvey stated she saw the black over-coat in another room in the court after the murder. A discussion was had years ago about this coat. I always felt it meant a room in Miller's Court, however, Michael Richards made a valid remark that it could have been a room in the court in terms of court room at the inquest. If it was in fact a room in Miller's court, it needs some explaining.

It was described as a pilot coat and I do recall its provenance was established.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Karl]

The fire in the grate was at best warm embers by the time the police entered the room, ergo, there was a fire in that fireplace within the previous 24 hours or so. There is NOTHING that compels us to believe that a "large fire" was lit at anytime that evening after midnight save the comments by Abberline....which were in fact just speculation. The spout solder could have been melted off at any time previous to that night, and the items found in the fire ashes were only partially consumed....which in and of itself suggests that they were placed on a low fire at best.

That it does, but a low fire would not take hours to go out by themselves. Leave a fire untended and it will go out in an hour; two at most, depending on the type and amount of fuel, and the fireplace itself. Glowing embers will remain for several hours after that.

I don't know what the police reports say, but retelling of these reports seem to differ. One place I may read that the ashes were still warm. Another place the kettle was still warm. And yet another there was still a fire burning.

Most secondary sources imply - rather than say - that the fire was out by the time the police arrived. If the ashes were still warm, that stacks alright with a solid fire which was not fuelled after about 3-ish in the morning (a guesstimate there - this leaves a good 10 hours before the police arrive). However, if the kettle was still warm, I'd say 8-ish - again, without having conducted any experiments; just going by my own experience with dead and dying fires. Of course, we don't know how warm. Just shy of hot warm, or just luke warm?

However...

A kettle generally cools quickly, mostly because it never gets above 100C (its contents will see to that). However, if you simply leave a pot or kettle on the stove, the water will boil away. When this happens, the container will continue to heat up until it is the same temperature as the stove, and this would be sufficient to melt the soldering. Also, because it is still on the stove, it will cool at the same rate as the stove itself. Once the stove is cold, though, the kettle will be, too. Which means if the kettle was still warm, so should the stove be, and there'd still be hot, rather than warm, ashes. Metal is a good conductor for heat, but it doesn't retain heat very well.

[wigngown]

Hi Pierre,

Is your suspect the same one you had when you first claimed that you thought you knew who the killer was? Or do you now consider someone else more viable?

Best regards,

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

Is your suspect the same one you had when you first claimed that you thought you knew who the killer was? Or do you now consider someone else more viable?

Best regards,

Hi,

the set of hypotheses is the same.

Regards, Pierre

[Geddy2112]

Dodged!

the set of hypotheses is the same.

So the reasons you think you know who it is are the same however the actual person could be different? Is this correct?

Your theories have not changed but the outcome may have?

[wigngown]

Thanks Pierre. Is Geddy2112 correct?

Regards,