The fire in the grate explained

[David Orsam]

I donīt do "reasonable questions". I do historical questions.

Are you saying that historical questions are not also reasonable questions?

[Pierre]

Pierre,

Like normal. that is no answer to a reasonable question.

I donīt do "reasonable questions". I do historical questions. All the answers are already in my first post. So you do not have to "help" others, who do not understand. I tried to help them once, by giving some basic information for historical methods. That was only met with belittling and ridiculing.

Like normal when when questions are asked, which are difficult to answer, the response is to make derogatory comments about the posters intellect and understanding.

You are intentionally interpreting everything I say about historical methods wrong. But if you would like to read a book about "Jack the Ripper" written by an actor or a journalist, go on, I will not try to stop you. That does not mean that actors or journalists are lacking "intellect and understanding", but they are not historians and I am not an actor. They are not historians and I am not a journalist. You would not want to see me act and you would not want me to write your local newspaper, so why would I want to read their books, called "history", which is no history? And saying that, am I making "derogatory comments"? No, I am stating the obvious: They are not historians.

A study of your replies shows this is a tendency of yours. If challenged say others do not understanding, and proclaim your superiority to all on the forum..

OK Steve. You are not contributing. You are accusing. You are destroying the subject for the thread, going way off topic.

So Pierre, please answer the question:

"Pierre, how pray tell me does that statement answer the question Azarna asked:"

"How do you know that the fire was not already lit when he arrived and he just added the clothes at some point?"

Those questions are not the questions I have been working with: "Did the killer add clothes"? "Was the fire already lit"? Read the first post.

"How does Bowyer pulling the curtain aside, tell you the killer lit the fire?"

Reductive argument, not historical. Does not work. Every item in the explanation must be considered. Read the first post.

You made a statement which does not answer the question you were asked, I simply asked for clarification. That is not dismantling the hypothesis? or is it so weak that any challenge could undermine it.

"Or is it so weak?" What sort of nonsens question is that? Is it a question about the subject of the thread? No. Are you a troll, Steve?

With regards to the conclusions I have analysed them them individually, and my source criticism of the hypotheses is that those conclusion are not established as stated.

"Established as stated"? What?

You have "analysed"? How? With what methods?

Rather than elaborate your views, your response is to accuse me of over simplifying and using only one item.

That is not true see post 15.

steve

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

That is not the tendency, so read the relevant post again.

I do not claim she "lied". I claim the source has a tendency. Go back and read my post. If you still do not understand the contents of it, you could come back with your questions.

Well Pierre, here is what you posted:

"Yes, I have. I have drawn the conclusion that there is a correlation between the scream and the murder and have done so due to the results of the internal and external source criticism of the Prater sources:

There is a tendency in the Prater inquest source. This tendency gives the source a bias, where Prater tries to add explanations for why she "took no notice" of the scream.

The tendency is revealed by Prater saying that "I did not hear it a second time", thereby constructing an inconsistency in the inquest source compared to the police investigation source, where Prater states that she heard the scream "about two or three times".

So at the inquest, she is trying to diminish the relevance of the observation of the scream, by giving another statement than she did in the police investigation, thereby making the observation seem less serious.

So we can not use Praters testimony about how "common" such screams where, since there is a tendency in the most important source. And since there was a murder in the room below Prater and opposite Lewis that night - this is something we know - the conclusion should be that there is a correlation between the observations of the scream and the murder."

You will have to forgive me if I have misunderstood anything because it is written in typical "Pierrespeak" not easy to understand - and, as usual, you muddle up sources with witnesses - but let's see what we can make of it.

1. In saying "Prater tries to add explanations for why she "took no notice" of the scream." you are surely implying that by adding an explanation that a cry of murder was not uncommon she was providing perjured evidence at the inquest are you not?

2. Support for this conclusion comes from your statement that, "she is trying to diminish the relevance of the observation of the scream, by giving another statement than she did in the police investigation, thereby making the observation seem less serious."

3. Then you say: "So we can not use Praters testimony about how "common" such screams where, since there is a tendency in the most important source." You are confused here because Prater is not a source she is a witness (and the source, being her deposition, is presumably accurate) but you appear to be concluding that she had a "tendency" or "bias" and was thus giving false evidence at the inquest.

How am I doing so far?

4. The only support for your claim that she had a tendency or bias - and was giving perjured evidence - is that her police statement was inconsistent with her inquest testimony thus you say: [I]"The tendency is revealed by Prater saying that "I did not hear it a second time", thereby constructing an inconsistency in the inquest source compared to the police investigation source, where Prater states that she heard the scream "about two or three times"."[/I]

5. You must be suggesting, therefore, that Prater was lying during her inquest testimony when she said that she did not hear the cry a second time. If she was telling the truth it cannot be revealing a "tendency" can it?

6. But if Prater was lying during the inquest this means she must have heard two or three screams which then raises the question of why Lewis only heard one scream does it not?

7. I have tried to ask you whether Prater was or was not lying at the inquest on this part of her testimony but have managed to get nowhere with you.

8. So I will ask you this directly:

1. When Prater said that a cry of murder in the street was common or uncommon was she telling the truth about that or lying?

2. If she was telling the truth then does that not undermine your suggestion that the cry of murder she had was someone seeing the mutilated body of Kelly?

3. If, however, she was lying, please explain clearly what basis you have to suggest that she was giving perjured evidence at the inquest.

[John G]

Yes, or unless he was:

1. Familiar with the room anyway
2. Used to check out the locations for the murders
3. Not very disorganized
4. Intelligent
5. Checking out the room before starting the mutilations

And so on and so forth. But the problem is "unless". We donīt like that. So that doesnīt count.

We just know he managed to do it.

But this isn't consistent with JtR's MO who, hitherto, has been content to attack in the open, and in risky locations. Now, I can accept that he may have got lucky that night, i e. Kelly was soliciting and invited him back to her room. However, as I noted in my earlier post, why delay striking until Kelly had undressed, neatly folded her clothes, and got into bed?

An interesting comparison is Sutcliffe's murder of Patricia Atkinson. Sutcliffe's MO was to target street prostitutes, however, this victim had a flat that she used for purposes of prostitution, which she took Sutcliffe back to. Nonetheless, he had so little restraint that, as soon as she took her coat off and sat on the bed, he launched his attack.

[Paddy Goose]

A) The murderer lit the fire since womenīs 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.

Pierre,

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

Paddy

[Pierre]

Yes, this is a good point unless, of course, the killer knew Kelly and was familiar with the room.

Yes, or unless he was:

1. Familiar with the room anyway
2. Used to check out the locations for the murders
3. Not very disorganized
4. Intelligent
5. Checking out the room before starting the mutilations

And so on and so forth. But the problem is "unless". We donīt like that. So that doesnīt count.

We just know he managed to do it.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Your strategy is now reductive talk. You are killing all the conclusions as well as the hypothesis I have presented to you. You point out only one item.

Therefore, it is not possible to discuss the explanation with you. This is a complex explanation and not a one item explanation.

I see this type of argument here over and over again. Reducing complex historical discussions, by reduction and simplifying.

If you are discussion an elephant, you can not only restrict the discussion to a discussion about the elephantīs trunk.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

Like normal. that is no answer to a reasonable question.

Like normal when when questions are asked, which are difficult to answer, the response is to make derogatory comments about the posters intellect and understanding.

A study of your replies shows this is a tendency of yours. If challenged say others do not understanding, and proclaim your superiority to all on the forum..

So Pierre, please answer the question:

"Pierre, how pray tell me does that statement answer the question Azarna asked:"

"How do you know that the fire was not already lit when he arrived and he just added the clothes at some point?"

"How does Bowyer pulling the curtain aside, tell you the killer lit the fire?"


You made a statement which does not answer the question you were asked, I simply asked for clarification. That is not dismantling the hypothesis? or is it so weak that any challenge could undermine it.



With regards to the conclusions I have analysed them them individually, and my source criticism of the hypotheses is that those conclusion are not established as stated.

Rather than elaborate your views, your response is to accuse me of over simplifying and using only one item.

That is not true see post 15.

steve

[David Orsam]

It is definitely worth noting that a report which must have come from information obtained on 9 November 1888, which appeared in the morning newspapers of 10 November (e.g. Morning Post), stated that a number of residents heard a cry of murder in the night but that:

"It is characteristic of the locality that no one thought anything of the incident, which, indeed, is too common occurrence to create either interest or alarm."

I suggest that this supports what Prater would say on oath at the inquest two days later.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;376538]That's not what I said at all Pierre.

My question was a very simple one. If Prater was telling the truth at the inquest about the number of screams she heard (and you don't seem to know whether she was or wasn't) then what basis do you have to allege that she had a "tendency" to lie about whether a cry of murder in the street was common or uncommon?

That is not the tendency, so read the relevant post again.

You are the one who is claiming she lied when she testified on oath at the inquest and I am trying to establish with you what reasonable basis you have to make such a claim.

I do not claim she "lied". I claim the source has a tendency. Go back and read my post. If you still do not understand the contents of it, you could come back with your questions.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;376522][QUOTE=John G;376518]

By Bowyer, but Bowyer was not the intended witness, since he was not the woman who screamed "Oh, murder!" between 03.30-04.00 (or thereabout).




Policemen had bullīs eyes, John!



Not being crazy enough to burn oneīs one clothes - as evidence for "crazy enough to burn other peopleīs clothes"? Second hypothesis based on first hypothesis, which is based on the established fact of Kellyīs clothes lying in the room, not having been burnt?.



OK.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

But, as Monty's You Tube clip demonstrated, policeman's lanterns didn't give off a great deal of light. Moreover, where's the evidence that police officers were intended to be the discoverers of the bodies? In fact, if this was the killer's intention he failed miserably.

Kelly could have burnt Marie Harvey's clothes in frustration, i.e. because she blamed her for the break up of her relationship with Barnett. Or, alternatively, desperation: because she was cold and the left clothes were the only available fuel (she may also have been drunk at the time.)

Are you suggesting the killer allowed Kelly to call for help in order to attract the local neighbours? If so, this was clearly inconsistent with JtR's MO. Moreover, he clearly needed time to undertake the extensive mutilations, so alerting neighbours to the incident, and inviting a possible interruption, would clearly have been seriously counterproductive.

[David Orsam]

A total generalisation again: "Either Prater was totally right or totally wrong. Either Prater was truthful or a liar".

That's not what I said at all Pierre.

My question was a very simple one. If Prater was telling the truth at the inquest about the number of screams she heard (and you don't seem to know whether she was or wasn't) then what basis do you have to allege that she had a "tendency" to lie about whether a cry of murder in the street was common or uncommon?

You are the one who is claiming she lied when she testified on oath at the inquest and I am trying to establish with you what reasonable basis you have to make such a claim.

[John G]

Didn't I already answer that? If she had picked him up in the street and taken him back to her room he would have seen her opening the door through the window wouldn't he?

I understand this. However, such a scenario doesn't seem to be consistent with a killer who, erstwhile, appeared to have overpowered and incapacitated his victims quickly and decisively. For instance, why would JtR, or any killer for that matter, delay striking until his intended victim had undressed, neatly folded her clothes, got into bed, and possibly fallen asleep?

And, frankly, I don't regard it as likely that JtR would have demonstrated that level of self restraint.

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Steve,

Your strategy is now reductive talk. You are killing all the conclusions as well as the hypothesis I have presented to you. You point out only one item.

Therefore, it is not possible to discuss the explanation with you. This is a complex explanation and not a one item explanation.

I see this type of argument here over and over again. Reducing complex historical discussions, by reduction and simplifying.

If you are discussion an elephant, you can not only restrict the discussion to a discussion about the elephantīs trunk.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,
you make absolutely no sense.
Why don't you just admit that you wrote something stupid, or answered the wrong question?
You are like a child that won't back down and cannot admit mistakes.

Please make yourself clear. Your answer to Azarna was anything but clear.

Best regards
IchabodCrane

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;376529]You could try answering the following questions for me:

1. At shortly before 4am in Millers Court, how many screams were there? (a) One? (b) Two? or (c) Three?

That depends on which source you analyse.

2. If the answer is either (b) or (c) then why did Sarah Lewis say at the inquest that she only heard one?

See above.

3. If the answer is (a) then would you agree that Elizabeth Prater told the truth at the inquest about the number of screams she heard?

Aristotelian logic is not compatible with historical methods. Please use historical methods for the past and not logic. The world is not logical, the world is not mathematical, the world is sociological. The past is a social past. The past give us sources from the past, not logic from logical models.

4. If Prater was telling the truth then what basis do you have for alleging she had a tendency, or an interest in creating or providing bias?

A total generalisation again: "Either Prater was totally right or totally wrong. Either Prater was truthful or a liar". That idea is not compatible with source criticism. There are parts in texts being correct, while other parts are not correct. Which parts, for example, were correct in the Hutchinson source?

[Pierre]

Pierre, how pry tell me does that statment anwser the question Azarna asked:

"How do you know that the fire was not already lit when he arrived and he just added the clothes at some point?"

How does Bowyer pulling the curtain aside, tell you the killer lit the fire?

Steve

Hi Steve,

Your strategy is now reductive talk. You are killing all the conclusions as well as the hypothesis I have presented to you. You point out only one item.

Therefore, it is not possible to discuss the explanation with you. This is a complex explanation and not a one item explanation.

I see this type of argument here over and over again. Reducing complex historical discussions, by reduction and simplifying.

If you are discussion an elephant, you can not only restrict the discussion to a discussion about the elephantīs trunk.

Regards, Pierre