The fire in the grate explained

[David Orsam]

It was an important factor in the murderer´s mind. That is why there were observations of the cry "Oh, murder!" and burnt women´s clothes in the grate.

We have to separate "Discovery of the victim" from "Discovery of the murderer".

The killer controlled the situation. If he had not, we would not discuss this.

I wish I could say I understood this answer Pierre but it makes no sense to me at all.

As I understood your OP, you were arguing that the murderer would not have lit the fire before murdering and mutilating Kelly because of the "risk of discovery". I'm asking you if the risk of discovery was not the same, or greater, for the murderer in murdering and mutilating other victims in the streets.

[Pierre]

I wasn't asking you for "post modern data". And I have no idea why you think I was asking you for "post modern data". I was asking you if you had any data. I'm glad you agree that my question was relevant therefore I will repeat it:

Do you have any data to suggest that someone in imminent fear of their life cries out the word "murder!" rather than "help!" or just screams?

I thought you understood my point: In 1888, there were no data collection for the variables you are asking for.

[David Orsam]

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.

But what if he actually saw a man with Kelly who looked Jewish?

How can you possibly say he wanted to blame someone looking Jewish when you don't know whether he did or did not see such a man?

[Elamarna]

Hi,

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.

First comments:

1. The window was round the corner, down the passage way, it was not in an area heavily populated, in addition, why would some one, reach in and pull the curtain aside.
what are you using as a source to draw on to look at the probability of someone looking in the window, and what suggests to you the this may have been a consideration in the killers mind

2. Don't want to be pedantic, but you do not observe a call, but yes two witness claimed to have heard a cry at approximately the same time.
It should however be noted that while the two accounts are superficially similar, there are significant differences between them.

The Hypothesis has so far failed to provide a reason for why there would be a witness, or indeed who that may be?.
Please don't suggest we tell you who, its your hypothesis, you tell us.

E) Given the facts I now establish above, we have very good evidence for a TOD before or about 04.00. At 04.30, Kelly was definitely dead.

Pierre you have not established points B, C or D.

However I am please to see that you have moved from 02.00 as a time of death.
However you are making a definitive statement at the end of that quote, which is unproven. While I would agree that it is probably that Kelly was dead by 4.30am, you have no sources to back the definitive statement made, do you?

Given that 3 of the 4 points made in the conclusion, B, C and D are claimed to have been established, are not established at all; one is forced to say that the hypotheses at present fails.


Steve

[Pierre]

If the "risk of discovery" was an important factor in the murderer's mind, would we not, therefore, have to conclude that the same individual did not murder and, where applicable, mutilate, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes in the street due to the risk of discovery?

It was an important factor in the murderer´s mind. That is why there were observations of the cry "Oh, murder!" and burnt women´s clothes in the grate.

We have to separate "Discovery of the victim" from "Discovery of the murderer".

The killer controlled the situation. If he had not, we would not discuss this.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;376501]Hello Pierre,

Firstly, the clothes that were burnt could have belonged to Marie Harvey, as she admitted to leaving some items of clothing in the house. In fact, according to Barnett, Kelly was in the habit of giving refuge to prostitutes, "she would never have gone wrong again, and I shouldn't have left her if it had not been for the prostitutes stopping at the house." Therefore the clothes could have belonged to any number of people. Conversely, Kelly's own clothes, that she was wearing that night, were folded neatly on the chair and not destroyed. Consequently, it's reasonable to argue that the fire could have been started by Kelly.

Hi John,

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

That is all I need to know.

Secondly, regarding the Boyer statement, I accept that the killer would have been taking a risk by starting a fire, however, if Kelly was murdered by JtR he clearly took much greater risks with earlier victims, i.e. Eddowes.

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

Thirdly, I do not know why the killer would have lit the fire for the witness. Presumably you're suggesting for shock value, however, such a conclusion makes no sense as there was no need to light a fire to achieve such an aim (and it also calls for speculation to argue that was an objective of the killer.)

"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.

Fourthly, the cry of "oh murder", heard by two witnesses, is clearly significant.

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

However, we have to take into account the fact that such cries were regarded as common place in the neighbourhood.

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.

Moreover, what I find of particular concern is that the earliest estimate, for hearing the alarm call, was 3:30. However, the last sighting that we have of Kelly prior to that is at about 2:00am by George Hutchinson, who I don't regard as a particularly reliable witness. This creates a difficulty because if Kelly was murdered by JtR, as I think she was, I find it very doubtful that he would have been able to restrain is murderous impulses for up to two hours before striking.

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

[David Orsam]

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

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.

[David Orsam]

That type of data must be drawn from the relevant population and time, that is London / Whitechapel in about 1888 (give or take 10 years or so), so I am afraid you can not deduce from post modern data for this question. Sorry.

I wasn't asking you for "post modern data". And I have no idea why you think I was asking you for "post modern data". I was asking you if you had any data. I'm glad you agree that my question was relevant therefore I will repeat it:

Do you have any data to suggest that someone in imminent fear of their life cries out the word "murder!" rather than "help!" or just screams?

[John G]

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.

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

[David Orsam]

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, the conclusion should be that there is a correlation between the observations of the scream and the murder.

But hold on Pierre. Are you saying that Prater did in fact hear two or three screams of murder? If so, then why did Sarah Lewis only hear one scream?

If, however, Prater only heard one scream, doesn't that mean there was no "tendency" in her evidence at the inquest because she was telling the truth? And if she was telling the truth at the inquest then why should we reject her evidence at the inquest that a cry of murder in the night was not uncommon?

[MrBarnett]

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.

[John G]

Hi,

I have analysed the original inquest papers and have decided on an interpretation for the fire in the grate, as you have seen in my thread "Let there be light!"

I analysed the sources and postulated the hypothesis that the fire was lit by the killer to use the light for revealing the murder scene to a witness.

I am now adding a few data contained in the original sources to confirm that I can not reject this hypothesis:

1. Abberline´s statement at the inquest:

"I have taken an inventory of what was in the room, there had been a large fire so large as to melt the spout off the kettle I have since gone through the ashes in the grate & found nothing of consequence except that articles of woman´s clothing had been burnt...".

Interpretation: The fire was lit by the killer, since the victim was poor and would not afford to burn clothes.

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.

Conclusions:

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.

E) Given the facts I now establish above, we have very good evidence for a TOD before or about 04.00. At 04.30, Kelly was definitely dead.

I especially ask David Orsam and GUT here in the forum to abstain from trying to destroy this thread by putting belittling and ridiculing commentaries in it.

And I invite those who want to contribute to this thread to discuss the hypothesis and conclusions.

Kind regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Firstly, the clothes that were burnt could have belonged to Marie Harvey, as she admitted to leaving some items of clothing in the house. In fact, according to Barnett, Kelly was in the habit of giving refuge to prostitutes, "she would never have gone wrong again, and I shouldn't have left her if it had not been for the prostitutes stopping at the house." Therefore the clothes could have belonged to any number of people. Conversely, Kelly's own clothes, that she was wearing that night, were folded neatly on the chair and not destroyed. Consequently, it's reasonable to argue that the fire could have been started by Kelly.

Secondly, regarding the Boyer statement, I accept that the killer would have been taking a risk by starting a fire, however, if Kelly was murdered by JtR he clearly took much greater risks with earlier victims, i.e. Eddowes.

Thirdly, I do not know why the killer would have lit the fire for the witness. Presumably you're suggesting for shock value, however, such a conclusion makes no sense as there was no need to light a fire to achieve such an aim (and it also calls for speculation to argue that was an objective of the killer.)

Fourthly, the cry of "oh murder", heard by two witnesses, is clearly significant. However, we have to take into account the fact that such cries were regarded as common place in the neighbourhood. Moreover, what I find of particular concern is that the earliest estimate, for hearing the alarm call, was 3:30. However, the last sighting that we have of Kelly prior to that is at about 2:00am by George Hutchinson, who I don't regard as a particularly reliable witness. This creates a difficulty because if Kelly was murdered by JtR, as I think she was, I find it very doubtful that he would have been able to restrain is murderous impulses for up to two hours, and probably longer, before striking.

Overall, I tend to agree that Kelly was killed prior, to say, the alleged sighting by Maxwell, and for that read on I'm loathe to be too critical. However, I am far less convinced than you appear to be.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;376495]

Yet we have evidence that such a cry in that area during the night was "not uncommon". Have you factored that evidence into your thinking?

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.

Do you have any data to suggest that someone in imminent fear of their life cries out the word "murder!" rather than "help!" or just screams?

That type of data must be drawn from the relevant population and time, that is London / Whitechapel in about 1888 (give or take 10 years or so), so I am afraid you can not deduce from post modern data for this question. Sorry.

Thank you for your relevant questions.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I especially ask David Orsam and GUT here in the forum to abstain from trying to destroy this thread by putting belittling and ridiculing commentaries in it.

And I invite those who want to contribute to this thread to discuss the hypothesis and conclusions.

You will see that I have, as always Pierre, complied with your request and have attempted to discuss the hypothesis and conclusions. I look forward to reading your responses to my posts.

[David Orsam]

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

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?