The fire in the grate explained

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=richardnunweek;376650]Hi,
Lets give alternative solutions for certain events.

Hi Richards,

Nice to see your alternatives.

A] The cry of ''Oh Murder''.[ Kelly awakening from a nightmare, that she was being murdered. Mrs Prater inquest statement, and as Kit Watkins informant Lottie stated]

The alternative is based on low facticity, i.e. an hypothesis about a dream. There is no such data. The alternative I give is based on high facticity, i.e. two witness statements (each in two different sources) about a cry of "Oh, murder!". High facticity has higher validity than has low facticity and therefore is the best alternative.

Kit Watkins and Lottie - what are the sources?

B] Kelly lit the fire upon wakening.the spout of the kettle fell to bits because she was murdered whilst boiling water.

"The large quantity of blood under the bedstead" (Phillips, original inquest source) indicated, among other things, according to Phillips that she died on the bed. Going to sleep, lying in bed, boiling water?

C] Kelly rolled up the bankets into a bed roll, which can be seen on the bed, which would imply she did this in the morning.

Could have been done at any time. Rolling up the blankets and then going to sleep?

D] Maurice Lewis account of Kelly returning with Milk. would give credence, to the boiling water factor.

No, there is no good evidence for that. The newspapers are not consistent. Lewis was talking of a "woman" and a "house" in many of these newspapers. The narrative is of very low validity!

E] The account apparently from Maxwell[ I read over 40 years ago] ''Her eyes looked queer, as if suffering from a cold'' would give backing to Hutchinson's account of hearing Kelly say ''Oh I have lost my handkerchief''.

Never heard of the "eyes looked queer" thing. Not in the original papers.

F] If all of this seems unlikely..The police believed the murder was committed in daylight.The Times November 12th, and that the killer burnt named items because they were bloodstained..Reason for fire??.

Regards Richard.

No such indication in the original sources. Or is there?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre,
An interesting theory.

Are you saying that the killer murdered and mutilated the woman in absolute darkness? Or by say, candle light?

It was not the first time in 1888 that a victim was murdered and mutilated in a dark place.

Are you inferring that the killer had a good understanding of human anatomy?

I would not use those words. The man who murdered and mutilated Kelly did what he did because he could. That is an established fact.

Best regards.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Chatty Cathy was a pull-string "talking" doll manufactured by the Mattel toy company from 1959 to 1965.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;376628]

Hi John,

What is the source for this?

The neatly folded clothes on the chair

Regards, Pierre

are also something of a conundrum. Is this, for example, something Kelly would be likely to do whilst drunk-and a number of witnesses suggest she may have been inebriated, or had been to the pub-or would she be more likely to just throw her clothes on the floor in this situation?

[David Orsam]

Yes, MJK was a very chatty Cathy about her relationship with Joe Barnett.

I don't actually know what that means.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Yes, MJK was a very chatty Cathy about her relationship with Joe Barnett.

Regards,

Simon

[Fleetwood Mac]

I don't think that really proves anything. Even single people might have preferences as to which side of the bed they sleep, and if she was asleep when attacked she may have been tossing and turning in the night.

However, if she was killed by JtR, I still think it likely that he would have attacked more or less as soon as they were through the door and out of sight of potential witnesses; which is exactly what Sutcliffe did when he murdered Atkinson in her flat.

The neatly folded clothes on the chair are also something of a conundrum. Is this, for example, something Kelly would be likely to do whilst drunk-and a number of witnesses suggest she may have been inebriated, or had been to the pub-or would she be more likely to just throw her clothes on the floor in this situation?

That's a good point about the clothes. It's been a while since I've been well and truly over the knot, but thinking back to my youth I wouldn't have been folding clothes up before jumping into bed.

But then I've always wondered just how mortal Kelly was. Cox walked up behind the couple and didn't notice she was 'drunk' until Kelly spoke. Now round this way, in the mining communities, mortal, or drunk, means can't walk straight and it would have been noticeable walking behind Kelly. My estimate is that Kelly was only half cut and so able to fold her clothes up.

Regarding the bed point, Eddowes was chatting with Jack with seemingly all the time in the world, assuming it was Jack; so there is something there to tell us he was prepared to wait in order to not arouse the suspicion of the victim thereby making the kill much easier.

I do think that lying on one side of the bed suggests there was probably someone else in there with her, particularly as it won't have been a big bed, and it would have been very convenient for Jack for her to willingly lie down against the wall.

I do take your Sutcliffe point although I think Sutcliffe had a burning desire to kill whereas Jack had a burning desire to mutilate. I think there was something different about them in the sense that Sutcliffe was not altogether concerned with a quick kill and seemed to want to cause as much pain as possible; whereas Jack despatched the victims with the minimum of fuss before he got down to business.

[Paddy Goose]

What do you suggest, Simon as the reason there's isn't a record of more tenants being interviews by the police on 9th November 1888?

Paddy

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Why summon Julia Venturney to the inquest?

According to her 9th November statement she saw and heard nothing during the night.

Presumably because she was able to testify as to the relationship between Barnett and Kelly as well as the fact that she had seen Kelly on the Thursday. Quite possibly also because her statement simply said "I was awake all night and could not sleep" without making clear that she didn't hear anything so perhaps the coroner wanted confirmation of this.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Why summon Julia Venturney to the inquest?

According to her 9th November statement she saw and heard nothing during the night.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

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.

I agree with this incidentally. If a tenant told the police that he or she heard and saw nothing during the night I doubt this would have been recorded in a written statement but if it was it is now lost.

[jerryd]

According to the Evening News, the Packer story first became public due to the exertions of LeGrand and Batchelor. The same newspaper LeGrand sold his information to.

LeGrand and Batchelor didn't trust each other.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Missing files.

The apologist's answer to everything.

I'm not an "apologist" Simon and it's the answer to your question.

I'm sorry I couldn't give you one more to your liking.

[Simon Wood]

Hi John G,

If, on 30th September, Matthew Packer told Sergeant White that he had seen nothing and nobody, and couldn't have avoided noticing his words were being recorded in White's notebook, how on earth could he have possibly hoped to get away with later telling the Evening News that the police had not questioned him?

And why did Packer's newspaper statement lead to his interview at Scotland Yard?

I would suggest it was Sergeant White telling the porkies.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Missing files.

The apologist's answer to everything.

Regards,

Simon