MJK's Body Identification?

[Pierre]

Dear Pierre,

Can I ask why you have taken a post of mine, quoted it and then copied your thread "The Maxwell-sources: End of misinterpretation" on to it as if it were a completely new post.
The only differences are that the formatting has changed, that is bold print and standard print are altered.

You may not be aware, if you are going to do this, it is the normal convention to say it is a repost.

The post itself is interesting, and I had already seen it.

regards

steve

OK, that is news to me. Yes, it is a repost.

So you find the post itself interesting, I hear. In what aspects?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

OK, that is news to me. Yes, it is a repost.

So you find the post itself interesting, I hear. In what aspects?

Regards, Pierre

Dear Pierre

it was not meant as any form of rebuke at all, mainly as info for future use.

steve

[Pierre]

Dear Pierre

it was not meant as any form of rebuke at all, mainly as info for future use.

steve

No problem, Steve!

But you didn´t answer the question.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

No problem, Steve!

But you didn´t answer the question.

Kind regards, Pierre

I know, i am still working on it at present. I take time to asses.

Steve

[Pierre]

I know, i am still working on it at present. I take time to asses.

Steve

Good. Thanks, Steve.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

So Pierre you've just repeated the post you made on Sunday in another thread, presumably because no-one was responding to that thread. Might I suggest that no-one was responding because it is not an impressive argument, perhaps because you have your own "tendency".

Firstly, as you always do, you confuse sources with witnesses. You don't make clear if you believe the sources are accurate in that they correctly reflect what the witness said. If they are accurate then you need to stop talking about "the tendency of the sources" but rather, to use your own silly preferred expression, "the tendency of the witness".

When you say: "The witness wants to give the police the impression she was rather close to the victim, since she was on speaking terms with her" this is nothing more than your own subjective interpretation. Your own "tendency" if you like. If Mrs Maxwell had spoken to MJK twice, then she was, by definition, on speaking terms with her. So there is no contradiction between what she said in her statement and at the inquest.

In fact, although you have listed 3 points from her statement compared with another 3 points from her inquest testimony, as if there is some contradiction between them, I can't see any contradiction there at all.

Then when you say "At the same time (!) she wants to distance herself from the victim, stating that she had not seen her for 3 weeks" that is again nothing more than subjective interpretation. If she hadn't seen MJK for 3 weeks then she was simply stating a fact. No idea why you think she would want to distance herself from MJK unless someone was accusing her of committing the murder.

Then you say that the "witness wants the police to believe" things. Firstly that is inaccurate because you refer to her evidence at the inquest when she was not talking to the police. She was then talking to the jury and the coroner. Secondly, if she was simply relating what she saw then you cannot say that she "wanted" anyone to believe anything.

I'm afraid that the following is utter gibberish:

"But: The witness could not have seen the vomit in the road, since the contents of the stomach were visible exclusively at the murder site. Therefore, there is a distance between the real contents of the stomach and the vomit in the narrative of the witness.

The same applies for seeing ”her head”. Her head was exclusively to be seen in the bed at the murder site. It was not to be seen outside on the street."

You might as well just cut the whole thing short and say that Mrs Maxwell couldn't have seen MJK in the street at 9am because MJK was already dead. That is how simplistic your argument is.

The second half of your post, incidentally, about "external source criticism" is meaningless. Someone needed to tell you this and it appears to have fallen to me to do so.

[packers stem]

Hi Pierre

But: The witness could not have seen the vomit in the road, since the contents of the stomach were visible exclusively at the murder site. Therefore, there is a distance between the real contents of the stomach and the vomit in the narrative of the witness.

The same applies for seeing ”her head”. Her head was exclusively to be seen in the bed at the murder site. It was not to be seen outside on the street.

Well I've seen it all now

Have you got the gist of what the thread is about?
I have a tendency to call this presumption....

[Elamarna]

Hi Pierre




Well I've seen it all now

Have you got the gist of what the thread is about?
I have a tendency to call this presumption....

Packers,

David actually summed that part up reasonably well:

"You might as well just cut the whole thing short and say that Mrs Maxwell couldn't have seen MJK in the street at 9am because MJK was already dead. That is how simplistic your argument is."

with regards to the rest of that thread, i am still working on it, probably respond tomorrow.


steve

[packers stem]

Hi Steve

Packers,

David actually summed that part up reasonably well:

"You might as well just cut the whole thing short and say that Mrs Maxwell couldn't have seen MJK in the street at 9am because MJK was already dead. That is how simplistic your argument is."

with regards to the rest of that thread, i am still working on it, probably respond tomorrow.


steve

You're quite correct in what you say
I'll look forward to reading your conclusions tomorrow

[Pierre]

So Pierre you've just repeated the post you made on Sunday in another thread, presumably because no-one was responding to that thread. Might I suggest that no-one was responding because it is not an impressive argument, perhaps because you have your own "tendency".

Firstly, as you always do, you confuse sources with witnesses. You don't make clear if you believe the sources are accurate in that they correctly reflect what the witness said. If they are accurate then you need to stop talking about "the tendency of the sources" but rather, to use your own silly preferred expression, "the tendency of the witness".

When you say: "The witness wants to give the police the impression she was rather close to the victim, since she was on speaking terms with her" this is nothing more than your own subjective interpretation. Your own "tendency" if you like. If Mrs Maxwell had spoken to MJK twice, then she was, by definition, on speaking terms with her. So there is no contradiction between what she said in her statement and at the inquest.

In fact, although you have listed 3 points from her statement compared with another 3 points from her inquest testimony, as if there is some contradiction between them, I can't see any contradiction there at all.

Then when you say "At the same time (!) she wants to distance herself from the victim, stating that she had not seen her for 3 weeks" that is again nothing more than subjective interpretation. If she hadn't seen MJK for 3 weeks then she was simply stating a fact. No idea why you think she would want to distance herself from MJK unless someone was accusing her of committing the murder.

Then you say that the "witness wants the police to believe" things. Firstly that is inaccurate because you refer to her evidence at the inquest when she was not talking to the police. She was then talking to the jury and the coroner. Secondly, if she was simply relating what she saw then you cannot say that she "wanted" anyone to believe anything.

I'm afraid that the following is utter gibberish:

"But: The witness could not have seen the vomit in the road, since the contents of the stomach were visible exclusively at the murder site. Therefore, there is a distance between the real contents of the stomach and the vomit in the narrative of the witness.

The same applies for seeing ”her head”. Her head was exclusively to be seen in the bed at the murder site. It was not to be seen outside on the street."

You might as well just cut the whole thing short and say that Mrs Maxwell couldn't have seen MJK in the street at 9am because MJK was already dead. That is how simplistic your argument is.

The second half of your post, incidentally, about "external source criticism" is meaningless. Someone needed to tell you this and it appears to have fallen to me to do so.

Yes, naturally it must be meaningless to you.

By the way, do you know what this is?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Yes, naturally it must be meaningless to you.

Well of course. It's meaningless which is why it is meaningless to me.

[David Orsam]

By the way, do you know what this is?

Unless it's a picture of your suspect I'm not interested.

[Pierre]

Unless it's a picture of your suspect I'm not interested.

The point is that when you look at something familiar you tend to miss important things.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

Well of course. It's meaningless which is why it is meaningless to me.

Turn it on its side, it spells Pierre I think.

[David Orsam]

The point is that when you look at something familiar you tend to miss important things.

Okay and what is the point of THAT point?

What important thing are you saying has been missed about Mrs Maxwell?