The fire in the grate explained

[David Orsam]

Also, there is no evidence of forced entry, and how would he have known about accessing the room via the broken window unless Kelly was known to him?

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?

[David Orsam]

What more can I do to make you understand what I am writing here?

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?

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

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?

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?

[Elamarna]

I know this because Bowyer was able to stick his hand through the window and pull the curtain aside and see the murder site.

Pierre, how pray 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

[Pierre]

A cry for which the evidence is that it was not uncommon in that area.

The tendency in the Prater inquest source is NOT "evidence for an area". You can NOT generalize to a whole area from one single statement. This is a well known scientific fact all over the world.

Prater did NOT have knowledge about the occurrence of screams of "Oh, murder!" in the "area" in 1888. She had not done any surveys or systematic observations.

[John G]

I had understood that, with the key missing, in order to open the door from the outside one had to put one's hand through the window, therefore if the killer was with Kelly when she entered her room he would have been aware of the broken window.

Hello David,

I must admit that I find the Kelly murder scene something of a conundrum. Thus, the fact that her clothes were neatly folded on the chair, coupled with the fact that the body was found in the middle of the bed, suggests to me that she may well have been asleep when she was attacked.

However, although I believe she was killed by JtR I find it hard to believe that he would have waited for Kelly to fall asleep until striking. After all, the other murder scenes suggest a killer who struck quickly and decisively, with little evidence of self restraint.

Of course, he could have accessed the room whilst Kelly was asleep, but this isn't at all consistent with JtR's MO. Also, there is no evidence of forced entry, and how would he have known about accessing the room via the broken window unless Kelly was known to him? It could have been a crime of opportunity, however, I can't somehow envisage JtR wandering through the local neighbourhood in search of asuitable solitary victim, asleep in a suitable residence with an easy access point.

[Pierre]

Burning the clothes does not lead to the conclusion that the killer must have lit the fire.

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

I know this because Bowyer was able to stick his hand through the window and pull the curtain aside and see the murder site.

[Pierre]

Yes but you have sought to undermine the veracity of one of those witnesses.

You can not make total generalizations from one tendency. You must consider the whole source and it´s details. Also, David, historians do not "seek to undermine" sources. That is the thinking of conspiracy theories.

I have many times pointed out all the serious and difficult problems with discussing historical questions with people who do not understand source criticism and historical method. Now you are highlighting this problem again. I am very sorry I have to bring it up again, but you give me no other choice. I wish you could understand what I say, but you do not. Instead you accuse me of "undermining" things. That is wrong.

I have also tried to explain to you what source criticism is, at least the most simple grounds. What more can I do to make you understand what I am writing here?

Regards, Pierre

[Azarna]

Burning the clothes does not lead to the conclusion that the killer must have lit the fire.

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

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;376518][QUOTE=Pierre;376508]

Hi Pierre,

But Kelly was discovered mid-morning, when it would have bern light, so why the need for the fire to create shock value?

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).

Moreover, if this was a characteristic of JtR's signature, then the other C5 victims, plus Tabram, were discovered at times when it would have been much darker, so ensuing there was sufficient light, for shock value and maximum impact, was clearly not a factor in those cases.

Policemen had bull´s eyes, John!

Your point that there is no evidence for Kelly previously burning clothes is relevant, however, balanced against that is the fact that the clothes that she was wearing that night were not burnt, but left neatly folded. Is this just coincidental , or suggestive of Kelly starting the fire, i.e. because she would have been crazy to burn her own clothes?

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

I disagree that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the killer was attempting to direct suspicion towards a Jewish suspect.

OK.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Two original sources, two witnesses: "Oh, murder!".

Yes but you have sought to undermine the veracity of one of those witnesses.

[David Orsam]

"Oh, murder!".

A cry for which the evidence is that it was not uncommon in that area.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;376508]

Hello Pierre,



Hi John,

So is there any evidence for Kelly previously burning clothes of other people?

That is all I need to know.



I know, but the potential ways of escape were fewer in a room than in the street.



"Shock value" is the right interpretation, so of course there was a need for lighting a fire, otherwise the room would have been dark, and the witness would not have seen all the contents of the room.




Yes, it is. So we can not ignore this. We must hypothesize about it and draw conclusions.


John - you say "were regarded". Is this a conclusion drawn from one source with a tendency? I mean the Prater inquest source. Because we can not generalize to a whole population - "the neighbourhood" - from one source with a tendency.


That is correct, this source has a tendency. He wants to blame someone looking "jewish". So we can not construct a timeline from that source. So I think that the Hutchinson source is the least problematical source. It is a source that we can dismiss. (Those who love that source can´t).

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

But Kelly was discovered mid-morning, when it would have bern light, so why the need for the fire to create shock value? Moreover, if this was a characteristic of JtR's signature, then the other C5 victims, plus Tabram, were discovered at times when it would have been much darker, so ensuing there was sufficient light, for shock value and maximum impact, was clearly not a factor in those cases.

Your point that there is no evidence for Kelly previously burning clothes is relevant, however, balanced against that is the fact that the clothes that she was wearing that night were not burnt, but left neatly folded. Is this just coincidental , or suggestive of Kelly starting the fire, i.e. because she would have been crazy to burn her own clothes?

I disagree that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the killer was attempting to direct suspicion towards a Jewish suspect.

[Pierre]

When you say "the witness", what witness do you mean?

I have carefully reviewed the primary sources and can find no mention of any witness who said they saw the body in the light of the fire.

Therefore, I must ask: do you have a source for there having been such a witness? Or have you conjured such an individual from your imagination?

Two original sources, two witnesses: "Oh, murder!".

[David Orsam]

Pierre, don't forget my post #4.

[IchabodCrane]

Pierre:

2. Bowyer´s statement at the inquest:

"...there was a broken window in the farthest window...I looked through the window and there was a curtain over the window I pulled the curtain aside and looked in...".

Interpretation: Putting a hand inside the room and pulling the curtain aside was all it took to look into the room and see what was there.

Therefore, the murderer would not have lit the fire during the murder and mutilations. The risk of discovery was too high.

If the curtain obscured the broken pane, how would the killer have known that it was broken? He couldn't have seen that it was from inside the room and he needn't have seen the exterior of the window.

Good point MrBarnett. Pierre's argument is fallacious.

Pierre, would you care to elaborate on two points:
1) What were the killer's sources of light during the mutilations?
2) Who was the witness that as per your theory uttered the cry of oh, murder?
You have an irritating tendency to present half-complete scenarios. Don't you realize that hinting at further knowledge you possess without sharing it is not considered good style in asking for peer review or opinion? To be blunt with you, it makes you come across as pompous, self-important and arrogant. No wonder you draw so much antagonism from fellow posters here. I assume that this is pure calculation on your part however.

Best regards,
IchabodCrane