Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hutchinsons statement....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    Well considering that he continues "as the period various from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in" it doesn't seem that he is talking about 30 minutes either way.
    You left out the bit where he concludes, "it is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours..."

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    How do we quantify "exact time", does he mean within 30 minutes either way?
    Well considering that he continues "as the period various from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in" it doesn't seem that he is talking about 30 minutes either way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    But if she wasn't alive at 9:00 (and, as I understand you, the Coroner didn't think she was for one second) then she could have been alive at 3:00am, talking to her murderer outside the Britannia. Especially as Bond states that "it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death" and that would surely have been communicated to the Coroner.
    How do we quantify "exact time", does he mean within 30 minutes either way?

    So it was surely odd on any view for the Coroner not call evidence which could have been absolutely crucial in respect of her murder.
    He has already read the evidence (ie; witness statements), so he knew there wasn't anything of value to contest Dr. Bond. Besides, he chose them too, right?
    Plus, he already had the story from Cox which was consistent with the medical conclusion.
    I'm sure if Wynne-Baxter had been the coroner we would have had considerably more testimony, but then Wynne-Baxter was not a medical man.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Resorting to witless antics like the ones you are trying right now, however ...
    Such as?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    A slightly more clever answer would have been unnecessary and futile.
    No, it would have been necessary and useful. Resorting to witless antics like the ones you are trying right now, however ...

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    I could have worded it better.
    The claim was that the court would need to know if Kelly was alive at 3:00 am, but in calling Maxwell this objection is covered, clearly if she was alive at 9:00 am then she had to be alive at 3:00.
    But if she wasn't alive at 9:00 (and, as I understand you, the Coroner didn't think she was for one second) then she could have been alive at 3:00am, talking to her murderer outside the Britannia. Especially as Bond states that "it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death" and that would surely have been communicated to the Coroner.

    So it was surely odd on any view for the Coroner not call evidence which could have been absolutely crucial in respect of her murder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    What did you mean by this sentence then:

    "Excuse me for pointing this out, but by calling Mrs Maxwell to testify to seeing Kelly after 9:00 am, then clearly Kelly had to be alive at 3:00 am." ?
    I could have worded it better.
    The claim was that the court would need to know if Kelly was alive at 3:00 am, but in calling Maxwell this objection is covered, clearly if she was alive at 9:00 am then she had to be alive at 3:00.

    I wasn't implying Macdonald believed all this.
    I think part of the reason the inquest was so quickly terminated was Macdonald saw no need to go any further.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    This was the 10th, the day Dr. Bond formed his estimated time of death, 1:00-2:00 am.
    What did you mean by this sentence then:

    "Excuse me for pointing this out, but by calling Mrs Maxwell to testify to seeing Kelly after 9:00 am, then clearly Kelly had to be alive at 3:00 am." ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    Is that how it worked in 1888 then Jon? Coroners formed their own theories as to time of death before an inquest and then didn't bother to call witnesses whose evidence conflicted with that theory?

    We have the press reporting Dr's Phillips & Macdonald together at Kelly's room.

    Dr. Phillips and Dr. Macdonald, M.P., the coroner for the district, visited Miller's court, and after the refuse had been passed through a sieve it was subjected to the closest scrutiny by the medical gentlemen.

    Here Dr's Phillips & Bond are mentioned in the same activity:

    Examining the ashes with the assistance of Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, for the presence of any fatty matter, or any trace of burnt flesh.

    So it would appear Macdonald, Phillips & Bond were in room 13 that Saturday afternoon discussing the evidence.
    Medical practitioners preference for professional opinion could very easily outweigh any vague and questionable witness testimony.
    This was the 10th, the day Dr. Bond formed his estimated time of death, 1:00-2:00 am.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    He doesn't need to call Kennedy for her 3:00 am sighting if he calls Maxwell for the 9:00 am sighting.
    But if Maxwell might be wrong then that's totally irrational.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    A slightly more clever answer to my post would be a useful start
    A slightly more clever answer would have been unnecessary and futile.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    Ah sorry Fisherman, I forgot that you have already solved the murders so there is obviously no further progress to be made.
    I may have been part of solving the murders, but since it cannot be proven, Iīd say that there are lots of progress to be made.

    A slightly more clever answer to my post would be a useful start. For example. But donīt strain yourself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    So the Coroner had decided that Kelly was murdered about an hour before Kennedy said she saw Kelly in the street? And before Prater and Lewis heard a cry of murder? And long before Maxwell saw her?

    But you told me in the plainest terms only a few posts ago:

    "by calling Mrs Maxwell to testify to seeing Kelly after 9:00 am, then clearly Kelly had to be alive at 3:00 am."

    So now I'm confused. Given that the Coroner did call Maxwell to testify to seeing Kelly alive after 9:00am, how is that Kelly possibly turns out to NOT be alive at 3:00am?
    In calling Maxwell who claims Kelly was alive about 9:00 am, then clearly any 3:00 am sighting of Kelly is covered.
    He doesn't need to call Kennedy for her 3:00 am sighting if he calls Maxwell for the 9:00 am sighting.
    The important piece of the puzzle that is not so easy to determine is, that Macdonald may have believed Kelly died around 1:00-2:00 am.
    So, all the witness testimony he will hear that day is just "going through the motions".

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    The authorities much prefer professional opinion as opposed to witness testimony. Macdonald's preference would be no different, if he was aware of Dr. Bond's estimated time of death (between 1:00-2:00 am) he may have judged all the witness testimony against Bond's professional opinion.
    This would mean he might lean towards believing Cox.
    Is that how it worked in 1888 then Jon? Coroners formed their own theories as to time of death before an inquest and then didn't bother to call witnesses whose evidence conflicted with that theory?

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    "Progress"?

    "We"?
    Ah sorry Fisherman, I forgot that you have already solved the murders so there is obviously no further progress to be made.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X