The fire in the grate explained

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

You are so predictable.

No, yours wasn't my question.

I wanted to know why there isn't a record of more tenants being interviewed by the police on 9th November 1888.

Ah, so you agree there was a flaw in your question then.

As originally asked:

Why were not more tenants interviewed by the police?

Now:

Why isn't there a record of more tenants being interviewed by the police on 9th November 1888?

Knowing the question, I can answer it: Almost certainly because virtually the entire contents of the Metropolitan Police file regarding the Kelly murder is missing or destroyed.

[John G]

Hi All,

As far as can be ascertained there were eight rooms at 26 Dorset Street [rooms 13—20].

In Millers Court there were six cottages each split into two rooms, one up, one down. A total of 20 discrete residences.

26 Dorset Street & Millers Court, 1881 and 1891 Censuses—

1881—43 residents, with 5 rooms occupied at 26 Dorset Street.

1891—43 residents, with 1 room occupied at 26 Dorset Street.

Of 10 named residents [possibly 9 if Lewis and Kennedy were the same person] only 4 were interviewed on the day of the murder and later called to the inquest [Cox, Prater, Venturney and Lewis].

Assuming the tenancy rate to have been similar in 1888, why were not more tenants interviewed by the police?

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

I wonder if it was common practice to only record statements in official reports from residents/ potential witnesses who had anything useful to contribute: other locals who were spoken to, but who had seen or heard nothing of consequence, could simply have had their details recorded in the constable's notebook-and I doubt many of these notebooks have survived.

Thus, Sergeant White claimed that he interviewed Matthew Packer on the 30 September, at which time Packer stated he'd seen nothing suspicious. However, Sergeant White's written report of the interview (his special notebook, which he would have been supplied with to record his findings has disappeared) is dated 4 October, the same date that Packer's somewhat controversial account appeared in the newspapers where, of course, he claimed the police hadn't spoken to him: the implications of this are, of course, that Sergeant White only submitted the official report following the publication of, and on direct response to, the newspaper articles.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You are so predictable.

No, yours wasn't my question.

I wanted to know why there isn't a record of more tenants being interviewed by the police on 9th November 1888.

Regards,

Simon

[Pcdunn]

Re Simon Wood's question: Presumably only 4 were willing to say anything, either to the police, or at the inquest. The others either heard nothing-- or told the authorities they had not heard a thing.

[David Orsam]

Of 10 named residents [possibly 9 if Lewis and Kennedy were the same person] only 4 were interviewed on the day of the murder and later called to the inquest [Cox, Prater, Venturney and Lewis].

Assuming the tenancy rate to have been similar in 1888, why were not more tenants interviewed by the police?

Hi Simon,

There's an obvious flaw in this question.

Firstly you say, correctly, that only 4 tenants of Millers Court & 26 Dorset Street were interviewed on the day of the murder AND later called to the inquest.

Then you go on to ask why more tenants were not interviewed by the police.

But how do you know how many tenants were interviewed by the police?

Or is your question actually: "Assuming the tenancy rate to have been similar in 1888, why were not more tenants interviewed by the police and called to the inquest?"?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

As far as can be ascertained there were eight rooms at 26 Dorset Street [rooms 13—20].

In Millers Court there were six cottages each split into two rooms, one up, one down. A total of 20 discrete residences.

26 Dorset Street & Millers Court, 1881 and 1891 Censuses—

1881—43 residents, with 5 rooms occupied at 26 Dorset Street.

1891—43 residents, with 1 room occupied at 26 Dorset Street.

Of 10 named residents [possibly 9 if Lewis and Kennedy were the same person] only 4 were interviewed on the day of the murder and later called to the inquest [Cox, Prater, Venturney and Lewis].

Assuming the tenancy rate to have been similar in 1888, why were not more tenants interviewed by the police?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

You are totally wrong if you are trying to generalize from Prater to the area or neighbourhood.

I'm not trying to do that at all Pierre. I was simply summarizing Prater's evidence. She said in her statement that she frequently heard cries of murder "from the back of the lodging house where the windows look into Millers Court", repeating in her oral evidence that "it is nothing uncommon to hear cries of murder". So when I summarized that evidence as her saying it was not uncommon to hear cries of murder in the area I simply meant the area around Millers Court. As a resident of that area, Prater was able to speak of this from her own personal knowledge.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Pierre
if the killer of mary Kelly barricaded her door, why would he light the fire for his intended witness to see the body? Did the killer know that the intended witness knew about his secret entrance?

[Paddy Goose]

Pierre, in your opening post you said -

"A) The murderer lit the fire since women´s clothes were burned. The victim could not afford to burn clothes.

B) The murderer did not light a fire before or during the murder and mutilations since the risk of discovery was too high: anyone could have put their hand through the window and pulled aside the curtain at any point in time.

C) The murderer therefore lit the fire to light up the room for the witness.

D) Evidence for the last conclusion is the scream "Oh, murder!" observed by two different witnesses living close to the murder site."

I quoted you in my post and asked you -

Pierre,

What changed from too risky to start a fire at point (B) to safe to start a fire at point (C)?

Paddy

Pierre, since you didn't answer my question "What changed from too risky to start a fire at point (B) to safe to start a fire at point (C)?" I'll answer it myself. Nothing changed. There is no plausible explanation for what changed to make the situation go from (B) too risky to start a fire to (C) safe to light a fire.

I have Pierre Reviewed your theory and found it lacking.

Paddy

[MsWeatherwax]

Why don't you do what I did Pierre, and do a Google search for peer reviewed papers and academic literature on Jack the Ripper?

I did not find what I discovered any more valuable than a well researched book written by someone who is not a 'historian'. Quite the opposite, actually - I thought one of the papers I read was fairly shoddy and consisted of 90% unsupported opinion. To be fair though, it was written by an undergraduate student.

I think I'm just used to reading information and research that has been imparted by people with multiple years of study and research in the field, though. It makes it quite glaring when someone is new to the subject and still making lots of errors and assumptions.

[Elamarna]

Is that the only book written by an academic historian you know or are there more?

Pierre

If you wish more titles because you want to read them, I suggest you do an online search.

The book quoted is a somewhat inferior in the ripper sections to the books of Helena Wojtczac on Chapman, and Rob House's book on Kosminski.

Steve

[Pierre]

hi Richard

yes those all seem logical, reasonable alternatives; although I do not necessarily agree with them.

I fear they will not be seen as such by some, who do not do reasonable or logical.

regards

Steve

I have not assessed them in any detail, they are however an alternative, that is not at odds with the known evidence.

I am not letting them pass, did you not see me say I did not agree with them.
However I did not consider responding to the points in detail given that I view them as just an attempt to make a point.

Did you see the post i made about a book by an academic historian on the experiment thread?

Steve

Is that the only book written by an academic historian you know or are there more?

[Elamarna]

How can you let those points pass, Steve?

I have not assessed them in any detail, they are however an alternative, that is not at odds with the known evidence.

I am not letting them pass, did you not see me say I did not agree with them.
However I did not consider responding to the points in detail given that I view them as just an attempt to make a point.

Did you see the post i made about a book by an academic historian on the experiment thread?

Steve

[Pierre]

hi Richard

yes those all seem logical, reasonable alternatives; although I do not necessarily agree with them.

I fear they will not be seen as such by some, who do not do reasonable or logical.

regards

Steve

How can you let those points pass, Steve?

[Pierre]

And yet that is exactly what you did in your first post.

No. It is a statement about burning of clothes. Read what I am writing.