MJK's Body Identification?

[David Orsam]

I guess you know the difference between a "house" and a "room".

Bad point. From the outside, 13 Millers Court would have looked like a house and could reasonably have been described as such. You would have had to have gone inside to know that it was only a single room. There may good be reasons to disregard Lewis' reported account but that is not one of them.

[Elamarna]

Bad point. From the outside, 13 Millers Court would have looked like a house and could reasonably have been described as such. You would have had to have gone inside to know that it was only a single room. There may good be reasons to disregard Lewis' reported account but that is not one of them.

David

I guess it is all about interpretation, and that is something which we can never be sure about. If Lewis had been in the court, as some have said, he may have had a different view of if it were a house or a room, thus on this occasion i see some merit in Pierre's comments.

However you may be right in that you may have needed to look into #13 to know it was just a room.

I as you know am open to all possibilities.

steve

[Elamarna]

I am looking at all possibilities, and considering them:

1. The idea of a mistaken date does not seem probably or very strong.
2. Lewis may not have told the truth, this is not unheard of, and is a viable option.
3. Your interpretation with regards to "house" is in my opinion, very viable and very strong.
4. The interpretation of "woman" or "deceased" is again viable, and strong, if not as strong as the "house" point.

You with all due respect are not looking at all the possibilities.

regards

Steve

Of course I forgot point 5

5. Lewis, did see MJK, when and where he said he did, in My opinion, unlikely but not impossible.

steve

[packers stem]

Hi John

Firstly, I don't see how anyone can logically argue that Maxwell was a reliable witness. She was not-if only for the reason that she had only briefly spoken to Kelly twice over a four month period-or the woman she believed to be Kelly- so the acquaintance was casual at best.

Well thats twice more than any other witness.
And that is good reason to dismiss as unreliable ?
Personally I prefer to go with the evidence and not attempt to portray someone as unreliable simply because it's inconvenient to a theory

And consider what Maxwell said at the inquest: she claimed that she saw Kelly twice on the Friday but couldn't even be sure in what order those sightings were! Thus, the sighting in the Court was "from eight to half-past" and the other sighting, outside the Britannia, was supposedly sometime between "eight and nine o'clock".

Coroner] This would be about what time ? - Between eight and nine o'clock. I was absent about half-an-hour. It was about a quarter to nine.
[Coroner] What description can you give of this man ? - I could not give you any, as they were at some distance.

Above is the relevant testimony .You missed the important line where the time is qualified at "about quarter to nine"
There is no confusion on Maxwell's part at all .

And Michael is absolutely correct in what he says in post 91: It is highly unlikely that such a casual acquaintance would refer to Maxwell as "Carrie", particularly as people of this era tended to address each other much more formally than would generally be the case today (Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly for a much longer period, but she still addressed him as "Mr Hutchinson" and, although his account is generally questionable, he had no reason to lie about the likely form of address.)

I find it perfectly natural that the women in the street would be on first name terms .This was Dorset street .The West end Victorian etiquette you hint at would have been sadly lacking

In fact, Baxter was also clearly astounded by this issue:" And yet you say you had only spoken to her twice previously; you knew her name and she knew yours."

McDonald was from a different class to the Dorset street residents so for etiquette see the previous response

I must also stress that there is not a shred of evidential support for the proposition that the woman murdered in Miller's Court was anyone other than MJK, however, I understand that you don't wish to discuss this matter, as any explanation would clearly require a fairy-tale response.

The evidence is still greater than any evidence that it was Kelly .If you'd like to produce any shred of evidence that it was Kelly then we can discuss it .
It's not about fairy tales it's about what evidence is available to us

Maurice Lewis' claim to have seen Kelly talking this several people in the Britannia at 10:00am is a complete fantasy. Not a single witness came forward to corroborate this story, and it's quite fanciful to suggest that the police would not have discovered another witness if his account were reliable, particularly as this sighting took place in a public place and in broad daylight.

Already explained this more than once .Show me any witness accounts from the customers of the brittania for the previous evening and you may have a point but.....there aren't any

Regarding time of death. Unfortunately you're another poster who seems to think that the Victorian GPS had the skills of a modern CSI team. Happily, we now have the assistance of modern pathologists: Dr Biggs, the forensic scientist engaged by Trevor Marriott stated: "Now days we recognise that it is [post mortem interval] subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn't even attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn't estimate time since death to within less than a few hours."

What I've said about TOD relates to the digestion of food and nothing else .Potatoes start to digest almost immediately .For Bond to have know about the fish and potatoes the victim died very soon after eating

[David Orsam]

David

I guess it is all about interpretation, and that is something which we can never be sure about. If Lewis had been in the court, as some have said, he may have had a different view of if it were a house or a room, thus on this occasion i see some merit in Pierre's comments.

However you may be right in that you may have needed to look into #13 to know it was just a room.

I as you know am open to all possibilities.

From the outside, of course, Steve, 13 Millers Court was connected to 26 Dorset Street so anyone emerging from a door of that structure could be said, in my opinion, quite reasonably to be coming out of a large house. Even without that connection, though, I would still have said that it would qualify as a house, albeit a small one. A room, to me, and surely most people, is something we find inside a house. Technically we know it was called "room 13" but the fact that MJK lived in a house which was a single room does not, I think, transform it into a room. I would have thought it would be quite unnatural for a witness to have said "I saw her coming out of a room" which would suggest a room inside a building whereas if he had said "I saw her coming out of room 13" then fine.

[David Orsam]

What I've said about TOD relates to the digestion of food and nothing else Potatoes start to digest almost immediately .For Bond to have know about the fish and potatoes the victim died very soon after eating

Hi Packers, I think the points you have made are reasonable but with one qualification in respect of the above. When researching my book, 'The Camden Town Murder Mystery' I learnt that current medical opinion is that you can't fix a time of death from the rate of digestion of food. Here is what I wrote about the death of Emily Dimmock:

Upon further consideration, the doctor came to the conclusion that Emily was murdered ‘about three hours after she had partaken of food’ but estimating time of death from stomach contents is an even more unreliable method due to the fact that different digestive systems pass food from the stomach to the intestines at different speeds. Dr Thompson appears to have applied a general rule of thumb that a stomach empties completely about four hours after a meal. It is known as a fact that the digestive system comes to a halt at the moment of death so, if the stomach of a dead person has emptied three quarters of its food contents (as Emily’s had, according to Dr Thompson ), then it might naturally be concluded that death took place about three hours after the last meal. However, while Dr Thompson would not have known it at the time, subsequent advances in forensic pathology have shown that the general rule of thumb he applied is totally inaccurate and the simple fact is that there is no way that any sensible conclusion as to the time of death could have been drawn from the contents of Emily’s stomach.

Reference: Jessica Snyder Sachs, 'Time of Death: The True Story of the Search for Death’s Stopwatch', William Heinemann, 2002

[packers stem]

Hi Abby

Good post JohnG
added to the fact that there simply is not enough time after the Maxwell sighting, let alone the Maurice lewis sighting, that Mary could meet her killer, walk back to her place, and be mutilated like that. plus you have the fact of the large fire and burnt clothes-indicating a much earlier encounter with her killer.

I agree, the idea that she was killed after the sightings is crazy.... Doesn't mean the sightings are wrong

Another thing-according to Maxwell mary was so sick from drinking that she vomited, after already going to the pub. So shes going to head back out to the pub after that? In the shape shes in? and be in any mood/condition to have sex/ solicite for sex?
Its ridiculous.

People get unwell. It is rediculous to think that she'd be soliciting between 8 and 10 though in my opinion

also, whats your take on Muarice lewis saying the woman he thought was Kelly was carrying milk? sounds like he saw Maxwell!?! and Maxwell saw Lizzie as Michael suggested. Do we know if Lizzie had been drinking? maybe it was her that vomited and who Maxwell spoke to, thinking it was mary?

As Lewis was in the court I can't imagine how he could see Maxwell. I'm stunned at the determination to pass Maxwell off as a fool

[packers stem]

Hi Packers, I think the points you have made are reasonable but with one qualification in respect of the above. When researching my book, 'The Camden Town Murder Mystery' I learnt that current medical opinion is that you can't fix a time of death from the rate of digestion of food. Here is what I wrote about the death of Emily Dimmock:

Upon further consideration, the doctor came to the conclusion that Emily was murdered ‘about three hours after she had partaken of food’ but estimating time of death from stomach contents is an even more unreliable method due to the fact that different digestive systems pass food from the stomach to the intestines at different speeds. Dr Thompson appears to have applied a general rule of thumb that a stomach empties completely about four hours after a meal. It is known as a fact that the digestive system comes to a halt at the moment of death so, if the stomach of a dead person has emptied three quarters of its food contents (as Emily’s had, according to Dr Thompson ), then it might naturally be concluded that death took place about three hours after the last meal. However, while Dr Thompson would not have known it at the time, subsequent advances in forensic pathology have shown that the general rule of thumb he applied is totally inaccurate and the simple fact is that there is no way that any sensible conclusion as to the time of death could have been drawn from the contents of Emily’s stomach.

Reference: Jessica Snyder Sachs, 'Time of Death: The True Story of the Search for Death’s Stopwatch', William Heinemann, 2002

Hi David
I can't disagree with what you say about Dr Thompson using a general rule of thumb....it can't work and digestion time has more to do with the food type being digested.
Potatoes are digested much more quickly than meat. I think my reasoning is that Bond could actually identify that it was potato.Not quite sure how he could do that unless there was barely any digestion.
Either way though I think on the balance, chances are that death occurred within a few hours of a fish supper

[Errata]

Hi David
I can't disagree with what you say about Dr Thompson using a general rule of thumb....it can't work and digestion time has more to do with the food type being digested.
Potatoes are digested much more quickly than meat. I think my reasoning is that Bond could actually identify that it was potato.Not quite sure how he could do that unless there was barely any digestion.
Either way though I think on the balance, chances are that death occurred within a few hours of a fish supper

I think, though I cannot swear, that he could test for the presence of starch in the stomach contents. If it smelled like fish and had a lot of starch, odds are it was fish and chips, right?

[Pierre]

"I prefer to go back to the primary sources and analyse them. Sometimes they seem to say very different things compared to what people think they have said. In this way you might get closer to the sources, closer to the past and closer to the murderer."


yes and you have made the case strongly " house " meaning #26"

"When you follow sources stepwise, you can see where the sources change. And by analysing the tendency in the source, you can make a more valid interpretation."

However when we come to the issue of who was seen, I do not believe the source will be able to tell us what Lewis meant, if he did say woman, it could as you say mean any woman, however it may mean MJK, i do not see anyway of knowing just what he meant.
I do however consider that your interpretation does have a lot in its favour.

Hi Steve, I agree with you that the source will not be able to tell us what Lewis meant. And the consequence of that interpretation is that we must exclude the idea that he saw Kelly as a "fact", that is, we can not, from the source at hand, establish that he saw Kelly as an historical "fact".

"These are questions we can never answer and I guess that is why you like them. As long as there are such questions, you can hold on to you old view. With all due respect, that´s fine with me but not enough if you really want to see the contents of the sources."

Why do you say that Pierre, do you actually know what my view is?

Because I have the impression that you cherish your own free will to chose a "view". I base this assumption on the fact that you sometimes explicitly discuss the "view" in this forum. I also read that you are prepared to "change" your "view" if there is a reason.

I myself don´t have a "view", you see. The reason for this is that it would make me blind to the sources. I have only question marks. And I don´t chose the answers I get. It is the sources that kick back. They convince me against my will.

I am looking at all possibilities, and considering them:

1. The idea of a mistaken date does not seem probably or very strong.

2. Lewis may not have told the truth, this is not unheard of, and is a viable option.

Good point. So the source should have a tendency if he didn´t. You should be an historian, Steve!

3. Your interpretation with regards to "house" is in my opinion, very viable and very strong.

Yes, since Kelly stayed in a "room" and the sources giving the statement of Lewis saying "house" - at the same time, so to speak. They are two different concepts.

4. The interpretation of "woman" or "deceased" is again viable, and strong, if not as strong as the "house" point.

Yes. And I would like to know which sources are stating that Lewis knew Kelly. Because if he did, he would not have called her "a woman" in this context.

You with all due respect are not looking at all the possibilities.

That sounds interesting - what do mean, Steve?

regards

Steve

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Packers, I think the points you have made are reasonable but with one qualification in respect of the above. When researching my book, 'The Camden Town Murder Mystery' I learnt that current medical opinion is that you can't fix a time of death from the rate of digestion of food. Here is what I wrote about the death of Emily Dimmock:

Upon further consideration, the doctor came to the conclusion that Emily was murdered ‘about three hours after she had partaken of food’ but estimating time of death from stomach contents is an even more unreliable method due to the fact that different digestive systems pass food from the stomach to the intestines at different speeds. Dr Thompson appears to have applied a general rule of thumb that a stomach empties completely about four hours after a meal. It is known as a fact that the digestive system comes to a halt at the moment of death so, if the stomach of a dead person has emptied three quarters of its food contents (as Emily’s had, according to Dr Thompson ), then it might naturally be concluded that death took place about three hours after the last meal. However, while Dr Thompson would not have known it at the time, subsequent advances in forensic pathology have shown that the general rule of thumb he applied is totally inaccurate and the simple fact is that there is no way that any sensible conclusion as to the time of death could have been drawn from the contents of Emily’s stomach.

Reference: Jessica Snyder Sachs, 'Time of Death: The True Story of the Search for Death’s Stopwatch', William Heinemann, 2002

In Marys case we also have the onset of Rigor Mortis detected, albeit affected by the age, health, muscles, and ambient temperature of the deceased. The fact that the dead body is still pliable until the rigor sets in makes me wonder whether the exact postion of Marys body in MJK1 and 3 is an accurate reflection of the exact position she was originally found in.

The ashes were still warm, which might speed the onset, but it was November and she did have a few broken window panes.

I believe the mention of the onset and some of the mitigating factors indicates that she died in the early morning hours, but likely before 8am.

[Pierre]

In Marys case we also have the onset of Rigor Mortis detected, albeit affected by the age, health, muscles, and ambient temperature of the deceased. The fact that the dead body is still pliable until the rigor sets in makes me wonder whether the exact postion of Marys body in MJK1 and 3 is an accurate reflection of the exact position she was originally found in.

The ashes were still warm, which might speed the onset, but it was November and she did have a few broken window panes.

I believe the mention of the onset and some of the mitigating factors indicates that she died in the early morning hours, but likely before 8am.

Hi,

And how would the rigor function when a body is hacked into pieces and the bits are distributed around it?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Kellys door opened onto the court at the end of the passageway Pierre. The fact that the room was the rear of 26 is irrelevant.That is the door she would have used for leaving and returning again

No. You don´t understand. The door in the passageway leading into the house of 26 Dorset Street was visible from the court. Lewis is talking about a "house" and not a "room." So it is highly relevant.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

David

I guess it is all about interpretation, and that is something which we can never be sure about. If Lewis had been in the court, as some have said, he may have had a different view of if it were a house or a room, thus on this occasion i see some merit in Pierre's comments.

However you may be right in that you may have needed to look into #13 to know it was just a room.

I as you know am open to all possibilities.

steve

And if (!) Lewis knew Kelly he would have known that she stayed in a room. And he would not have called her "a woman".

A source for Lewis knowing Kelly, anyone? Or I shall, with pleasure, do it myself, as soon as I have the time.

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Hi,

And how would the rigor function when a body is hacked into pieces and the bits are distributed around it?

Regards, Pierre

I presume Marys remains would have cooled as a result of the organ extractions, which would have slowed the onset. I dont see a problem with a murder sometime shortly after 4am.