Originally posted by Pierre
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
MJK's Body Identification?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostBad 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.
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
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
5. Lewis, did see MJK, when and where he said he did, in My opinion, unlikely but not impossible.
steve
Comment
-
Hi John
Originally posted by John G View Post
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.
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] 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.)
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."
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.
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.
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."You can lead a horse to water.....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elamarna View PostDavid
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by packers stem View Post
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
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
Comment
-
Hi AbbyOriginally posted by Abby Normal View PostGood 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.
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.
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?You can lead a horse to water.....
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostHi 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
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 supperYou can lead a horse to water.....
Comment
-
Originally posted by packers stem View PostHi 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 supperThe early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elamarna View Post"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.
"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?
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.
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
SteveLast edited by Pierre; 03-23-2016, 05:32 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostHi 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
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostIn 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.
And how would the rigor function when a body is hacked into pieces and the bits are distributed around it?
Regards, Pierre
Comment
-
Originally posted by packers stem View PostKellys 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
Regards, Pierre
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elamarna View PostDavid
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostHi,
And how would the rigor function when a body is hacked into pieces and the bits are distributed around it?
Regards, Pierre
Comment
Comment