Morris Lewis Revisited

[John G]

I'm not sure that mutilating Kelly in such a crude way would have required much, if any, light. The killer could have relied on touch. Anyway, if she was murdered in the early hours of the morning, i.e. after sunrise, then surely sufficient light would have penetrated the curtains.

[Abby Normal]

Are you going back on your previous position now John?

All these questions have been answered already.

1. The killer might have murdered and/or mutilated Kelly in the nude to prevent blood splatter on his or her clothes. Hence a fire used to keep warm while "working".

2. The killer was not superhuman with superhuman eyesight. If the curtains were blocking out the light from outside it would have been dark in the room. Everyone needs light to see. Previously (assuming Kelly was murdered by the same person who murdered the other women) he or she would have had light from street lamps to assist. If there was no other light source in the room (which there wasn't) the fire would have been vital for the killer to see what he or she was doing.

3. Killer might have wanted to burn something.

These kind of questions and answers, which are all theoretical, get us absolutely nowhere because you can always say "oh that's a bit unlikely" but unless you can rule them out conclusively they don't even begin to negate the evidence of Mrs Maxwell. But if the only way to answer them, consistent with Mrs M's evidence, was that Kelly was killed by someone other than the murderer of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes then that could be the answer.

Hi David
Re Number one. Thats just silly. I have seen you mention this possibility before. Why?
FYI. I agree with everything else about the light. But I just can't fathom a nude ripper. Lol.

[c.d.]

Wouldn't the killer want the visual thrill of seeing his handiwork? Hence he needed light. And there is always the possibility that Kelly assured him that a fire was a signal to her neighbors that she was entertaining and was not to be disturbed.

c.d.

[David Orsam]

I do indeed

Thank you.

I hope I can conclude this by saying that sometimes I can walk into my living room in the dark with no light on and perform some simple task. However, I usually tend to turn on the lights so that I can see what I am doing. No-one who has not been in the vicinity of my room will ever be able to say on any particular occasion whether I did turn on the lights or not. Similarly with the murderer of MJK, we cannot possibly know whether he wanted extra light in the room to see what he was doing. Attempting to draw conclusions about this from any possible previous murders is utterly futile. He might have done, he might not. Where does it get us? Nowhere.

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you think that Dr Biggs would agree that a human being needs some light to see what he or she is doing?

I do indeed, although from my dealings with many of these medical and forensic experts, many are very gung ho in what personally they could do in these same situations, and as is the case with all experts they seldom agree totally with each other.

I think a good analogy is the consultant gynaecologist who could wallpaper his hallway through his letterbox.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

It doesn't take a lot of light to cut a persons throat and then mutilate them. It does take sufficient light for the killer to be able to remove organs with a degree of anatomical knowledge.

Do you think that Dr Biggs would agree that a human being needs some light to see what he or she is doing?

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh come on John! You are not telling me that Dr Biggs has revealed to us in his answer that no murderer/mutilator ever needs light to see what they are doing are you? You cannot take his answer in respect of a specific question about one victim and apply that to other victims. In any case, his answer is irrelevant because he has no idea about the lighting conditions in Mitre Square in 1888 and, as to that, Dr Sequeira said "There would have been sufficient light to enable the murderer to commit his crime without the aid of any additional light".

This statement of Dr Sequeira is ambiguos because it could be interpreted to suggest Dr Sequeira was simply talking about the murder and mutilations and not the removal of the organs.

Firstly Dr Biggs should not have been told that Eddowes was mutilated in "almost total darkness" because that was not the evidence, the evidence being that there was "sufficient light" albeit that Eddowes was killed in the darkest corner of the square. Secondly, the killer of Kelly did more (or carried out different mutilations) than simply remove her uterus and kidney.

The murder scene was described as the darkest part of Mitre Square. So the term "in almost total darkness" was right and proper to disclose to Dr Biggs those facts. So no where does it say "total darkness"

Well it most certainly does if the point being made is that JTR's eyesight was superhuman in that he did not need light to see he was doing, as shown by the fact that he supposedly murdered and mutilated his other victims in "almost total darkness" and, thus, it is said, he would not have needed to light a fire at 9:00am therefore the existence of the fire somehow proves that Kelly must have been murdered in the middle of the night.

It doesn't take a lot of light to cut a persons throat and then mutilate them. It does take sufficient light for the killer to be able to remove organs with a degree of anatomical knowledge.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Dr Bond opined that Kelly was murdered whilst asleep. That raises the possibility that Kelly started the fire, prior to falling asleep, and was then noticed by her killer, possibly through the curtains with the fire providing the illumination, although they might not have been drawn.

In any event, I see no reason why the killer mightn't have then taken advantage of the light created by a fire started by Kelly. I was simply arguing that, if he was JtR, he had no reason to go to the time and trouble of starting the fire himself.

What's point of this line of discussion John?

Does it go to the issue of the timing of Kelly's murder or is it completely unrelated to that?

[John G]

That's just a pure guess. And I now don't know even what you are saying. There was obviously a fire in that room. Either it was extinguished prior to the murder, in which case it tells us nothing about the time of the murder, or it was burning during the murder, in which case (if the curtain was transparent) it means that the room would have been illuminated during the murder, whatever time the murder was, or it was lit after the murder in which case it tells us nothing about the time of the murder.

Dr Bond opined that Kelly was murdered whilst asleep. That raises the possibility that Kelly started the fire, prior to falling asleep, and was then noticed by her killer, possibly through the curtains with the fire providing the illumination, although they might not have been drawn.

In any event, I see no reason why the killer mightn't have then taken advantage of the light created by a fire started by Kelly. I was simply arguing that, if he was JtR, he had no reason to go to the time and trouble of starting the fire himself.

[David Orsam]

I think Pierre said that he wouldn't need a "large fire." The level of available light would depend on what time Kelly was killed, and how much light would have penetrated the curtain. I would also refer you to my earlier post, i.e. referring to Dr Biggs' opinion that the perpetrator could have largely relied on touch.

Who cares what Pierre said? Inspector Abberline, who was actually present in the room, and was presumably not an idiot, said that he assumed the fire was lit "for the purpose of light". On what basis are you able to say that Abberline could not have been correct? And how are we ever going to find out how much light would have penetrated the curtain? We're not, so we have to work on the possibility that the curtain prevented light from coming into the room.

[David Orsam]

The fundamental point is that Dr Biggs' believed a victim could be eviscerated in almost total darkness, i.e. with the perpetrator chiefly relying on touch.

No, that's not what he said. He just said that certain organs can be pulled out of a body without the need for adequate lighting. No more than that. He didn't say that a human being doesn't need light to see what he is doing.

[John G]

You are seriously agreeing with Pierre that the killer of Kelly did not need light to see what he was doing simply on the basis that other victims were killed and mutilated in the streets at night?

I think Pierre said that he wouldn't need a "large fire." The level of available light would depend on what time Kelly was killed, and how much light would have penetrated the curtain. I would also refer you to my earlier post, i.e. referring to Dr Biggs' opinion that the perpetrator could have largely relied on touch.

[David Orsam]

But the room may well have been illuminated by a roaring fire, considering the likely quality of the curtain that covered the window. In fact, even some modern curtains can be seen through.

That's just a pure guess. And I now don't know even what you are saying. There was obviously a fire in that room. Either it was extinguished prior to the murder, in which case it tells us nothing about the time of the murder, or it was burning during the murder, in which case (if the curtain was transparent) it means that the room would have been illuminated during the murder, whatever time the murder was, or it was lit after the murder in which case it tells us nothing about the time of the murder.

[John G]

Oh come on John! You are not telling me that Dr Biggs has revealed to us in his answer that no murderer/mutilator ever needs light to see what they are doing are you? You cannot take his answer in respect of a specific question about one victim and apply that to other victims. In any case, his answer is irrelevant because he has no idea about the lighting conditions in Mitre Square in 1888 and, as to that, Dr Sequeira said "There would have been sufficient light to enable the murderer to commit his crime without the aid of any additional light".



Firstly Dr Biggs should not have been told that Eddowes was mutilated in "almost total darkness" because that was not the evidence, the evidence being that there was "sufficient light" albeit that Eddowes was killed in the darkest corner of the square. Secondly, the killer of Kelly did more (or carried out different mutilations) than simply remove her uterus and kidney.



Well it most certainly does if the point being made is that JTR's eyesight was superhuman in that he did not need light to see he was doing, as shown by the fact that he supposedly murdered and mutilated his other victims in "almost total darkness" and, thus, it is said, he would not have needed to light a fire at 9:00am therefore the existence of the fire somehow proves that Kelly must have been murdered in the middle of the night.

The fundamental point is that Dr Biggs' believed a victim could be eviscerated in almost total darkness, i.e. with the perpetrator chiefly relying on touch.

[David Orsam]

Thanks Pierre. And I agree with the points that you've made.

You are seriously agreeing with Pierre that the killer of Kelly did not need light to see what he was doing simply on the basis that other victims were killed and mutilated in the streets at night?