Let there be light!

[Observer]

So what is that evidence?

All you have come up with is the cry of murder which was not identified as being Kelly's voice and Prater told us this was a common occurrence in the area. So how can it possibly contradict Maxwell's testimony?

Oh dear. What about the evidence surrounding Kelly's last meal? You wouldn't recognise evidence if it smacked you in the face I'm afraid.

[Observer]

This is one of the weirdest questions I've been asked bearing in mind that you are saying Kelly did not obtain any drink from anywhere!

Come now, I was working on the assumption that Maxwell was being truthful.

It's nothing more than pure assumption on your part. An assumption that she regularly frequented the Britannia and would have been known by the people drinking in there at that time of morning. It also assumes that anyone who did see her would have stepped forward to speak to the police.

The reason that no one came forward to say they had seen her drinking in any of the local bars is simple, she wasn't in any of them that morning.]

"We have no idea if she had ever been into the Britannia before; perhaps she drunk in other pubs. So the people in the Britannia might never have seen her before or taken any notice of her if she had been in there. There were no photographs the police could show people to identify her."

[/I]All you have said is this:

"Wherever she went that morning would she have been recognised? Given her propensity to frequent beer houses, and the fact that she had lived in that area for 10 months, I'd say yes most definitely yes."

Prater went out for a drink that morning but didn't even go to a pub in Dorset Street. She went to the Ten Bells in Church Street.

I happen to think you are wrong to say that Kelly would "definitely" have been recognised in the Britannia and I don't see how it is possible to say this. At the very least, the evidence does not bear out such a statement.

And this is why posters become increasingly frustrated with you David. I don't know where you hail from, but let me tell you that here in the UK, we Brits, who like a bit of a drink will invariably frequent the same bars over a period of time, and it was no different in the Victorian age. Once again, Mary Kelly had lived in Miller's Court for ten months she was a bit of a soak. McCarthy tells us this. I'm 100 per cent certain, and it's certainly not an assumption, that Mary Kelly visited, on a regular basis, the public houses surrounding the area. She was loud in drink, McCarthy tells us this. I have no doubts, that Kelly was well known in the public houses in and around Millers Court. If you can't live with this then fair enough. Dream on.

One further thing. Why do you suppose the description of the man as seen by Maxwell talking to Kelly outside The Britannia was not circulated as a person of interest?

[Abby Normal]

Hi David, yes, I did see your earlier question but couldn't recall anything specific at that moment.

According to press interviews with her friends Kelly was well known in the area and easily recognisable, not many women wore their hair long and loose and the colour made her stand out. Her apron always clean and white.

Insp. Drew wrote that Mary had been well-known to every resident and, sunny of nature, had been very popular.

An Echo reporter visited a local doss-house to ask if anyone knew the victim...two local dossers are quoted...

When asked, "Did anyone know her?"

- "Did anyone not know her? - a remark which hugely tickled his companions. Poor Mary Jane Kelly was a figure, it appears, in street brawls, sudden and quick in quarrel, and - for a woman - handy with her fists.

- An elderly man who wore a coat and waistcoat, but no shirt beneath, averred in pessimistic tones it was better for Mary Jane Kelly to have been done to death. "Wot was her life?" he muttered, spreading out his thin and not too clean hands to the fire. "Starvation three days a week, and then, when she got money, drink for the other three days. I knowed her. I guv her the money for her doss three weeks ago cos she hadn't none. Yes, matey, and that at two in the mornin'," he said, turning to our reporter whose intent bearing may possibly have suggested incredulity. "Mary Jane was a good soul." This testimony was freely offered. "She would spend her money lavishly when she had any, and when she hadn't any, why -"

These are the only snippets I could locate at the moment, so yes, she was well known, and people are said to have liked her.
In that sense, a local celebrity, someone remembered by many.

Didn't one of the police recall her . Something about parading up and down the street with her friends.

[Observer]

I haven't "chosen to ignore" this at all Observer. In fact, I made a post on the subject addressed to Pierre on 19 May.

It was in #215 of the thread "Morris Lewis Revisited".

I said:

"Is the answer that one does not vomit up the entire contents of the stomach when vomiting, so that some partially digested food will remain in there? (otherwise a person could never vomit more than once in succession which does not seem to be the case)."

I never received any response to this question. Perhaps you can answer it?

A question. At what time do you suppose Mary Kelly partook of the meal of fish and potatoes?

[Observer]

Isn't saying "let's hear no more of this common cry of murder malarkey" being selective with the evidence?

Because that cry of murder was precisely what Elizabeth Prater told us what a common occurrence in that area.

If you want to block your ears to it, like Prater and Lewis did, then that's up to you but the voice of the scream was not identified as Kelly's so that it could have been anyone, given that the evidence in the case is that such a scream was common.

As I asked, (and you have ignored this point) is it likely that should the scream have been the result of a common assault then no other utterances than the cry of "oh murder" should have been heard by Lewis? Especially Lewis who testified that the scream had emanated at her front door. No male voice, with the victim only uttering "oh murder". I doubt it David.

And as I have already asked, does someone faced with a knife cry out "oh murder!" in a faint voice rather than screaming for help? It doesn't seem natural to me nor likely.

Incredible. Absolutely incredible. You acknowledge that Kelly should have made more noise upon being faced with a knife, and yet you would have us believe that an assault (which was serious enough for the victim to have cried oh murder) took place "at the front door" of Sarah Lewis and the only utterance was as single cry of "oh murder". Come off it David.

Either way, while one can argue that the scream might have been Kelly, it also might not have been so that it cannot properly be said to be evidence which contradicts the witness testimony of someone who saw Kelly alive.

It's evidence David, pure and simple.

[David Orsam]

There most definitely is

So what is that evidence?

All you have come up with is the cry of murder which was not identified as being Kelly's voice and Prater told us this was a common occurrence in the area. So how can it possibly contradict Maxwell's testimony?

[David Orsam]

It's pointing to The Britannia being the likely place where Kelly obtained her drink, don't you think?

This is one of the weirdest questions I've been asked bearing in mind that you are saying Kelly did not obtain any drink from anywhere!

But yes Maxwell did say that Kelly had been in the Britannia. However, you have not responded to this:

"We have no idea if she had ever been into the Britannia before; perhaps she drunk in other pubs. So the people in the Britannia might never have seen her before or taken any notice of her if she had been in there. There were no photographs the police could show people to identify her."

All you have said is this:

"Wherever she went that morning would she have been recognised? Given her propensity to frequent beer houses, and the fact that she had lived in that area for 10 months, I'd say yes most definitely yes."

It's nothing more than pure assumption on your part. An assumption that she regularly frequented the Britannia and would have been known by the people drinking in there at that time of morning. It also assumes that anyone who did see her would have stepped forward to speak to the police.

Prater went out for a drink that morning but didn't even go to a pub in Dorset Street. She went to the Ten Bells in Church Street.

I happen to think you are wrong to say that Kelly would "definitely" have been recognised in the Britannia and I don't see how it is possible to say this. At the very least, the evidence does not bear out such a statement.

[David Orsam]

There is another piece of vital evidence, yes evidence, which you have chosen to ignore, and it has been suggested to you, namely the remains of food found both in the abdominal cavity and stomach of Mary Kelly.

I haven't "chosen to ignore" this at all Observer. In fact, I made a post on the subject addressed to Pierre on 19 May.

It was in #215 of the thread "Morris Lewis Revisited".

I said:

"Is the answer that one does not vomit up the entire contents of the stomach when vomiting, so that some partially digested food will remain in there? (otherwise a person could never vomit more than once in succession which does not seem to be the case)."

I never received any response to this question. Perhaps you can answer it?

[David Orsam]

The fact that only one scream was heard (Prater heard only one scream also which corroborates Lewis's account) is significant.

Are you being selective with the evidence here Observer?

In her written statement, Prater said: "I heard a screams of murder two or three times in a female voice".

At the inquest she changed this to one scream and, while it's not unreasonable to rely on her sworn testimony, I can only imagine what you would be saying if there was such a difference between Maxwell's written statement and her oral testimony.

Further, Mary Ann Cox said in her oral testimony that she was awake all night but heard no scream, further "I should have heard any cry of murder I heard nothing".

So do you ignore Cox's evidence here? If so, are you being selective about which evidence you ignore and which you accept?

[David Orsam]

How a cry of "oh murder" heard by two witnesses, in very close proximity to an actual murder, can not be construed as evidence is beyond me. This is the tac you take. It's evidence David, pure and simple. Let's not have any of the

"it was the norm to hear such cries in that area"

malarky.

Isn't saying "let's hear no more of this common cry of murder malarkey" being selective with the evidence?

Because that cry of murder was precisely what Elizabeth Prater told us what a common occurrence in that area.

If you want to block your ears to it, like Prater and Lewis did, then that's up to you but the voice of the scream was not identified as Kelly's so that it could have been anyone, given that the evidence in the case is that such a scream was common.

And as I have already asked, does someone faced with a knife cry out "oh murder!" in a faint voice rather than screaming for help? It doesn't seem natural to me nor likely.

Either way, while one can argue that the scream might have been Kelly, it also might not have been so that it cannot properly be said to be evidence which contradicts the witness testimony of someone who saw Kelly alive.

[Observer]

The rest of your post Observer is like Groundhog Day for me.

I know the feeling.

The Coroner's wariness must have been based on his knowledge of the doctor's estimate of time of death, perhaps with the scream in mind, but I've said a number of times that his remarks to Mrs Maxwell were unfair bearing in mind that there was no evidence presented at the inquest which contradicted her account of Kelly being alive at 8:00am. None at all.

And rightly so, his remarks were completely justified, there was ample evidence which points to Mary Kelly being murdered in the early hours of the 9th November. And now to the crux of the matter.

How a cry of "oh murder" heard by two witnesses, in very close proximity to an actual murder, can not be construed as evidence is beyond me. This is the tac you take. It's evidence David, pure and simple. Let's not have any of the

"it was the norm to hear such cries in that area"

malarky.

Sarah Lewis

"[Coroner] What woke you up ? - I could not sleep. I sat awake until nearly four, when I heard a female's voice shouting "Murder" loudly. It seemed like the voice of a young woman. It sounded at our door. There was only one scream.
[Coroner] Were you afraid ? Did you wake anybody up ? - No, I took no notice, as I only heard the one scream."

At our door, very close, one scream. The fact that only one scream was heard (Prater heard only one scream also which corroborates Lewis's account) is significant. Are we to believe that the single scream as heard by Lewis and Prater was the result of a common assault? There were no other murders in that area that night, so if it was not Mary Kelly then it must have been a completely different incident. A single cry of "oh murder" as the result of a common assault? I would have thought that if the attack was not fatal, then there would have been a tad more to be heard. Lets not forget Lewis thought it was "at our door". Why only a single scream? The answer is simple, it was Mary Kelly's last cry before her throat was cut. Whatever you choose to believe David, the scream is evidence as to time of death.

There is another piece of vital evidence, yes evidence, which you have chosen to ignore, and it has been suggested to you, namely the remains of food found both in the abdominal cavity and stomach of Mary Kelly.

Doctor Bond

"In the abdominal cavity was some partially digested food of fish & potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines."

The food was recognisable, partly digested it hadn't been in the stomach long, if Maxwell is to be believed then the meal was taken shortly before 8 o clock. Now bear in mind that Mary Kelly according to Maxwell had been to a beer house and had had a half of beer, which she had vomited into the road. Wouldn't the fish and potatoes have come up with the beer? And yet it was found in Mary Kelly's stomach by Doctor Bond.

As for the Britannia, the police would only have been able to find out anything if the people in the Britannia actually knew her and that's why I've been pressing Jon about the evidence relating to her being a local celebrity or "well known". We have no idea if she had ever been into the Britannia before; perhaps she drunk in other pubs. So the people in the Britannia might never have seen her before or taken any notice of her if she had been in there. There were no photographs the police could show people to identify her. Maxwell didn't even say she was in there in any case, she said she saw her outside the Britannia. It was Lewis who said she was in there.

McCarthy had often seen Kelly in drink,

She had lived in Millers Court for ten months

The Britannia was a minutes walk

Maxwell said she supposed Kelly had been in the Britannia

Maxwell said she had seen Kelly talking to a man, they were standing outside The Britannia

It's pointing to The Britannia being the likely place where Kelly obtained her drink, don't you think?

It's irrelevant anyway as to where Kelly obtained the glass of beer. The focus should be aimed at whether Kelly was well known in the area where she obtained the glass of beer. I believe she was, and it's unlikely, should she have wanted a glass of beer that morning, she would have strayed very far to obtain it. In all likelyhood she would have popped into one of her locals to purchase the beer. Wherever she went that morning would she have been recognised? Given her propensity to frequent beer houses, and the fact that she had lived in that area for 10 months, I'd say yes most definitely yes. I think the police would have been wise enough to visit all the public houses in the vicinity to determine whether Kelly had paid a visit sometime after 8 a.m. on te morning of the 9th November.[/QUOTE]

And you can believe what you like about Maxwell, it doesn't change the fact that there was no evidence presented at the inquest which contradicted her account, nor anything we know now that contradicts her account, and THAT is the only point I have been making in this forum.

There most definitely is

[Pierre]

I think that's a fair example of mistaken identity, this woman was described as living upstairs, on the second floor. Is there a suggestion that different reporters invented this woman and child?
We do not know all the second floor occupants of No.26. Mistaken identity is very feasible given what we subsequently learned about Kelly.

Is the existence of this woman and child 'unbelievable' or 'believable'?
Does the suggestion that this woman was the victim mean, the woman did not truly exist?

Hi,

There are articles, for example the one I quote here, giving that "the boy who stayed with Kelly was not her child, but that of a woman who had stayed with her on several occasions" (Source: Edinburgh Evening News - Saturday 10 November 1888).

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I know it sounds crazy, but I also have some difficulty believing the weather forecasts.

[David Orsam]

We have not even come close to discussing what newspapers report on; like politics, exchanges in the house of commons, criminal cases nation wide, national & international accidents, fires, sports, weather, and foreign wars.

Definitely sports by the way. Not a day goes by when you don't read about a story in the paper about a football player transfer or potential manager sacking or hiring which turns out to be false.

[David Orsam]

Various sources indicate she was popular

Hold on, that's what I've been asking you. What are the sources?

The only contemporary source you've given me so far is the Echo report (which doesn't quite confirm popularity).