The fire in the grate explained

[Paddy Goose]

Do it Yourself Ripperology

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

Because all the other tenants got wind of Her Majesty's Anti-Clan na Gael hit team wot showed up the night before. Which explains why Pierre says it was safe to light a fire after they killed her.

Based on results of the Tendency Reduction Cipher Model 6000.

Paddy

[Rosella]

This was a very cold night. I don't see why a fire would cause that much curiosity to passersby, especially with curtains and a man's overcoat covering the broken window so no one could see anything unless they pulled the coat out of the way. Other tenants might vaguely wonder where Mary's getting the wood and coal to have a fire, lucky woman, but, unless the chimney was smoking badly I can't see anyone actively investigating.

Again we are all underestimating Jack's readiness to take risks, unbelievable risks sometimes, and the great luck that attended all his endeavours, IMO.

Just think, by the time it was Mary's turn Jack had killed in an open street, a lonely street it's true but still a thoroughfare, in the back yard of a houseful of tenants, in the yard of a club feet away from a woman in a lighted kitchen, and last but not least, in a square only yards away from a night watchman who often popped outside for a breath of fresh air. And he got away with it all!

If that's not immense luck, I don't know what is. Lighting a fire or keeping one going in a room would seem a nothing to him. By the time of the Kelly murder he was probably feeling omnipotent.

[Robert St Devil]

This was a very cold night. I don't see why a fire would cause that much curiosity to passersby, especially with curtains and a man's overcoat covering the broken window so no one could see anything unless they pulled the coat out of the way. Other tenants might vaguely wonder where Mary's getting the wood and coal to have a fire, lucky woman, but, unless the chimney was smoking badly I can't see anyone actively investigating.

.

It could also be that the windows were kept covered for the privacy of her clients.

[GUT]

It could also be that the windows were kept covered for the privacy of her clients.

Or even her own.

[wigngown]

Pierre,

I appreciate that others were killed in darkness, but the Millers Court killing was infinitely different due to the mutilations & time it must have taken to carry them out.

Yes, the killer did mutilate Kelly to such an extent because time and opportunity were on his side, unlike the other killings. Did the killer, in your opinion, have a sound knowledge of the human anatomy? This question refers to all victims.

I know you are busy debating on other threads, and indeed this one, & I thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

Best regards.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Fine.

Believe what you like.

Hi Simon,

I wasn't expressing a belief in anything, simply explaining why I couldn't understand your "chatty Cathy" remark.

[Joshua Rogan]

My sister had a Chatty Cathy doll. It sure was stroppy - every other pull of the cord she'd say "I don't WANT to go to bed!".
Hmmm....if MJK had been the same, would it have made Jack mad enough to do what he did?

[Michael W Richards]

Dunno about you Mickey lad but I've never used a light coming from someone's room or home as a pretext to waltz in uninvited, and I've never heard of anyone else doing it. Where I come from you'd be on the wrong end of a spade wrapped 'round your nut were you to do so.

There is absolutely no reason to think that Jack was inviting danger by lighting a fire any more than the danger he was already in.

I think Fleetwood that having his back to any vantage point that could have access to see into the room, (ie Door/windows) is a pivotal issue here. The light is one thing, being unable to see if anyone is looking in is another.

Again, I believe partially burnt fabric indicates that the fire could not have been hot enough to melt the solder, at least when those items were added to it. Which, logically, was done by someone other than Mary Kelly. These items were part of the laundry of a client of Maria's, Mary wouldn't burn them.

As to my idea that Mary and Maria did that laundry on the Thursday while they were together in Marys room, I think the washtub being that visible in the photo shows us that it was likely used recently..otherwise it would be pushed out of sight. Maria gave Mary coins. Maria had clean laundry she left in the room. The tap in the alcove, the melted solder...I think it adds up to a story for when the fire was burning hot...to heat the water repeatedly.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=wigngown;376802]Pierre,

I appreciate that others were killed in darkness, but the Millers Court killing was infinitely different due to the mutilations & time it must have taken to carry them out.

Yes, the killer did mutilate Kelly to such an extent because time and opportunity were on his side, unlike the other killings. Did the killer, in your opinion, have a sound knowledge of the human anatomy? This question refers to all victims.

Hi,

I donīt know how you define "sound knowledge". I do not think that this serial killer was a medical man. The reasons are that

1) There was no need for medical knowledge for performing the murders and mutilations.

2) The proof for this statement is that all over the world and at any point in time there were murders and mutilations performed by non medical men. They were done by soldiers in war, by executioners after trials and also by relatives in cases of honour murders and honour mutilations. And there are a lot more examples. So historically there is a wide range of people murdering and mutilating other people, and the murderers and mutilators were not medical men.

3) A serial killer is doing it several times and so he specializes on it.

My conclusion is that the idea of Jack the Ripper being a medical man is not relevant at all. The reason why the idea exists are speculations in sources from 1888.

Kind regards, Pierre

I know you are busy debating on other threads, and indeed this one, & I thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

Best regards.

[wigngown]

Thanks Pierre,

Best regards.

[Henry Flower]

Pierre, I want to thank you for teaching all of us how history is done properly. I've said this before and I'll say it again, I have absolute confidence that your rigourous fidelity to the sources will identify the murderer, where others who have spent decades studying the sources with less reliance on gradations of facticity have failed.

Also, I've asked this question once before but it's one of those questions you seem to have been too busy to answer: given how keen you are to stress your credentials and methodology as a historian, could you please be so kind as to share links here to some of your published papers or books as a historian?

Such a step might help to silence some of the dickholes here who believe you to be a pompous, arrogant, hyper-sensitive, condescending troll who has has decided on a suspect ("I think I have found him") and is now examining the sources trying to make them fit his suspect, and ignoring questions that challenge his hypothesis by resorting to risible arguments like "that is a reasonable question, but I only deal with historical questions" etc.

I look forward to the list of your publications as a historian, along with glowing peer review, and the silencing of these idiots with their faith in reasonable questions and mere logic.

Bravo Pierre, bravo.

[Geddy2112]

I donīt know how you define "sound knowledge". I do not think that this serial killer was a medical man.

There is a difference between having 'medical' knowledge and being a 'medical man' surely. I have enough medical knowledge to know where most of my vital organs are but having the skill to remove them in the dark and at considerable speed to avoid being caught I do not. Two totally different things IMO.

1) There was no need for medical knowledge for performing the murders and mutilations.

Of course there was. How can you remove a heart or a kidney unless you had sufficient knowledge where to look? Dear me how absurd.

2) The proof for this statement is that all over the world and at any point in time there were murders and mutilations performed by non medical men. They were done by soldiers in war, by executioners after trials and also by relatives in cases of honour murders and honour mutilations. And there are a lot more examples. So historically there is a wide range of people murdering and mutilating other people, and the murderers and mutilators were not medical men.

Indeed but will have had some MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE. Or shall I say anatomical knowledge.

3) A serial killer is doing it several times and so he specializes on it.

How many times did he remove a heart or a kidney? Hardly several in the case of JtR. Oh by the way you need a 's' in that word not a 'z'. Or are we American? (Which might explain things lol.)

My conclusion is that the idea of Jack the Ripper being a medical man is not relevant at all. The reason why the idea exists are speculations in sources from 1888.

Maybe he was or maybe he was not, it's sort of irrelevant, the point has always been has he 'anatomical or medical' KNOWLEDGE. Like I said I have a decent understanding of anatomy but in no way would I consider myself a medical man in the same way I can rewire an electrical socket but I'm not an electrician.

Also, I've asked this question once before but it's one of those questions you seem to have been too busy to answer: given how keen you are to stress your credentials and methodology as a historian, could you please be so kind as to share links here to some of your published papers or books as a historian?

Such a step might help to silence some of the dickholes here who believe you to be a pompous, arrogant, hyper-sensitive, condescending troll who has has decided on a suspect ("I think I have found him") and is now examining the sources trying to make them fit his suspect, and ignoring questions that challenge his hypothesis by resorting to risible arguments like "that is a reasonable question, but I only deal with historical questions" etc.

I look forward to the list of your publications as a historian, along with glowing peer review, and the silencing of these idiots with their faith in reasonable questions and mere logic.

Bravo Pierre, bravo.

Cold day in hell my friend, cold day in hell....

[Karl]

Of course there was. How can you remove a heart or a kidney unless you had sufficient knowledge where to look? Dear me how absurd.

How much medical knowledge would suffice? And who knows what he was looking for? All the killer had to know was that strangling and slashing will kill someone, and curiosity could take care of the rest. It's not like he took the easiest route to the kidneys, or Mary's heart, for that matter. And we don't know that he planned to take specific organs before he killed - he could have simply taken them on a whim as he was hacking his victims up.

Of course, with Catherine Eddowes it does look like he purposely went after that kidney, seeing as he cut the intestines loose and moved them out of the way to get at what was underneath. But this does not require medical knowledge. It just requires a knowledge of where the kidney is, and you don't have to have medical knowledge for that. Anatomical knowledge will do just fine. Had he had medical knowledge of the kidney, he'd know that the best way of extracting it is from the back or the side.

[Geddy2112]

How much medical knowledge would suffice? And who knows what he was looking for? All the killer had to know was that strangling and slashing will kill someone, and curiosity could take care of the rest. It's not like he took the easiest route to the kidneys, or Mary's heart, for that matter. And we don't know that he planned to take specific organs before he killed - he could have simply taken them on a whim as he was hacking his victims up.

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.

Of course, with Catherine Eddowes it does look like he purposely went after that kidney, seeing as he cut the intestines loose and moved them out of the way to get at what was underneath. But this does not require medical knowledge. It just requires a knowledge of where the kidney is, and you don't have to have medical knowledge for that. Anatomical knowledge will do just fine. Had he had medical knowledge of the kidney, he'd know that the best way of extracting it is from the back or the side.

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.

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.

[Pierre]

Pierre, I want to thank you for teaching all of us how history is done properly. I've said this before and I'll say it again, I have absolute confidence that your rigourous fidelity to the sources will identify the murderer, where others who have spent decades studying the sources with less reliance on gradations of facticity have failed.

Also, I've asked this question once before but it's one of those questions you seem to have been too busy to answer: given how keen you are to stress your credentials and methodology as a historian, could you please be so kind as to share links here to some of your published papers or books as a historian?

Such a step might help to silence some of the dickholes here who believe you to be a pompous, arrogant, hyper-sensitive, condescending troll who has has decided on a suspect ("I think I have found him") and is now examining the sources trying to make them fit his suspect, and ignoring questions that challenge his hypothesis by resorting to risible arguments like "that is a reasonable question, but I only deal with historical questions" etc.

I look forward to the list of your publications as a historian, along with glowing peer review, and the silencing of these idiots with their faith in reasonable questions and mere logic.

Bravo Pierre, bravo.

Hi Henry,

The problem is simple. Either it is a positive or a negative. It is not about me being a good or bad historian. It is about the sources being insufficient or sufficient.

I regret to hear that you call people idiots. People are doing as best they can and many of them have, as you point out, spent a lot of time on the case. They are not idiots because they have not found Jack the Ripper.

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

Regards, Pierre