Let there be light!

[Henry Flower]

David Orsam, why are you wasting your time?

This guy is not honest, he is just here to antagonize people, then plays all offended when people call him out on his stupid distortions and arrogance, his wilful failure to understand their points, etc etc.

[Wickerman]

No it was not one of the duties of the Coroner to give a time of death, so that's absolutely wrong!

It was for the jury to certify when death occurred, if that was possible on the evidence, normally meaning the date of death rather than the time because that was the information that went on the death certificate. The Coroner's duty was limited to making the inquiry to assist or enable the jury to come to a conclusion as to when death occurred.

Just think about it. A decomposing body is pulled out of the Thames for which there is an inquest. It's going to be pretty difficult to work out what day that person died. How is it even remotely possible for anyone to give the time of death? Yet, according to you, the Coroner would not be fulfilling his duty by failing to give a time of death!

Yes, when I said it was one of the Coroner's duties I didn't think the Coroner himself was required to provide this conclusion. I do have the Coroner's Act 1887, and I appreciate that the Coroner is a guide for the proceedings. He ensures the correct information is presented before the Jury - the final determination is theirs not his.

What I meant was, I saw it as the Coroner's duty to make sure the evidence was brought forth to enable the Jury to determine the "where", the "when", and "by what means", the victim met his/her death.
My mistake for being too vague.

[Wickerman]

True but they don't necessarily need it from the coroner or fixed at the inquest. It could be given to them directly by the doctor .....

I'm glad you voiced that opinion David, because this is precisely what I believe happened with Dr. Bond's report, Anderson would, I think, have passed that detail down to Swanson and his team.
This I believe is how attention shifted back to Blotchy from the Hutchinson suspect.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

You cannot imagine how much this goes against the grain, but I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with David about Mrs Maxwell's inquest evidence.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

So I don't see what you say as part of the duty of the Coroner and, indeed, how could the Coroner always state the time of death in every case?

Yes David, you are correct in what you say above, it is not always possible. I am reminded of the death of Montie Druitt, the Coroner couldn't even get the day, let along the time.
The point I was making was, the time of death is covered by the "when", although it has to be said, this info is not always available.

In the case of Mary Kelly, it appears Dr. Bond was able to provide an estimate, so the question for me is why did Macdonald not let Dr. Phillips provide his opinion on the matter.

[David Orsam]

If you have no hypothesis, OK. I hope you do understand the Greek word.

In post 140 for example you wrote:

"Mrs Maxwell: Said she saw MJK alive with her own eyes and spoke to her at 9am. She could, of course, have been mistaken but Dr Bond's evidence in no way contradicts her evidence. THAT is the point."

I asked you: ""Your hypothesis is that Kelly was alive at the point in time given by Mrs Maxwell, isnīt it?

It was a question, David.

I know what a hypothesis is Pierre and when you asked me your question I answered it by saying "No, that is not my hypothesis Pierre."

On this forum, as in the part of my post that you have quoted, I have repeatedly made the point that there is no real evidence in existence (and certainly no evidence given at the inquest) which contradicts Mrs Maxwell's evidence that she saw MJK alive at 8:00am.

I'm sorry to trouble you again with logic but that does not necessarily mean that I believe that MJK was alive at 8:00am.

[David Orsam]

How necessary was that for you? Why do you do it, David? Is it not enough for you to discuss the case - or perhaps you have other motives for being here.

It was absolutely necessary Pierre because you made a statement that was both untrue and illogical. If you were to stop doing such things then I would be able to stop pointing such things out.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;386216]Yes, she could have been sleeping but my thinking is that the knocking on the door would probably have woken her up.

As for the likelihood issue, we know for a fact that Kelly was found dead at 10.45 so I consider that her death is a likely reason for her not having answered the door at 7.30.

OK. How likely do you think it is? And why? I am very interested to hear how you think.

We also know for a fact that a witness at the inquest said she saw Kelly alive at 8:00am and testified that Kelly told her that she had "just had a drink of ale".

What is the source for this?

So my thinking is based on the notion that if Mrs Maxwell's evidence was correct then Kelly had probably left her room at 7.30am but if Mrs Maxwell's evidence was not correct Kelly was probably dead. But there are other possible explanations as you have noted.

OK. But it canīt be both or all of those. So what would be the most probable event in the past? What do you think? And why?

The problem is that Mrs Pritchett's story does not assist us in any way as to working out when Kelly was murdered.

The source provides us with the knowledge that Kelly did not open her door.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;386217

I think you once stated on this forum that logic was not your strong point and boy you are really showing it.

How necessary was that for you? Why do you do it, David? Is it not enough for you to discuss the case - or perhaps you have other motives for being here.

What about a situation where I have no hypothesis?

If you have no hypothesis, OK. I hope you do understand the Greek word.

In post 140 for example you wrote:

"Mrs Maxwell: Said she saw MJK alive with her own eyes and spoke to her at 9am. She could, of course, have been mistaken but Dr Bond's evidence in no way contradicts her evidence. THAT is the point."

I asked you: ""Your hypothesis is that Kelly was alive at the point in time given by Mrs Maxwell, isnīt it?

It was a question, David.

[David Orsam]

OK. So then your hypothesis is that Kelly was dead at that point in time. Since you can not have two contradictory hypotheses for this issue.

I think you once stated on this forum that logic was not your strong point and boy you are really showing it.

What about a situation where I have no hypothesis?

[David Orsam]

And how do you come to the conclusion that those two are the "most likely" possibilities? Kelly could also have been sleeping, or she might not have wanted to respond.

Yes, she could have been sleeping but my thinking is that the knocking on the door would probably have woken her up.

As for the likelihood issue, we know for a fact that Kelly was found dead at 10.45 so I consider that her death is a likely reason for her not having answered the door at 7.30.

We also know for a fact that a witness at the inquest said she saw Kelly alive at 8:00am and testified that Kelly told her that she had "just had a drink of ale".

So my thinking is based on the notion that if Mrs Maxwell's evidence was correct then Kelly had probably left her room at 7.30am but if Mrs Maxwell's evidence was not correct Kelly was probably dead. But there are other possible explanations as you have noted.

The problem is that Mrs Pritchett's story does not assist us in any way as to working out when Kelly was murdered.

[Pierre]

No, that is not my hypothesis Pierre. I shouldn't be surprised that you've failed to understand my posts on this subject and, as it happens, I'm not at all surprised.

OK. So then your hypothesis is that Kelly was dead at that point in time. Since you can not have two contradictory hypotheses for this issue.

[David Orsam]

Your hypothesis is that Kelly was alive at the point in time given by Mrs Maxwell, isnīt it?

No, that is not my hypothesis Pierre. I shouldn't be surprised that you've failed to understand my posts on this subject and, as it happens, I'm not at all surprised.

[Pierre]

I don't need to do a "source critical analysis for the Maxwell source", whatever you mean by that, in order to form a view that the likely explanation for Kelly not answering the door at 7.30am on the Friday morning is that she was either dead or not in her room.

But you see, you need it for comparing the Maxwell source and itīs value (reliability and validity) to the other set of sources. We can make good statements about the most probable time of death within a small range, if we perform source criticism and compare the sources!

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;386207

I'm wondering what your source is for that statement Pierre.

What is my "hypothesis" of which you speak?

Your hypothesis is that Kelly was alive at the point in time given by Mrs Maxwell, isnīt it?

I said that my explanation of Mrs Pritchett's statement is that Kelly was either dead or had gone out that morning.

No sources are of "lowest" or "highest" value in making this statement. I have given the two most likely possibilities.

So what concept of likelyhood do you use?

And how do you come to the conclusion that those two are the "most likely" possibilities?

Kelly could also have been sleeping, or she might not have wanted to respond.

It's also possible, of course, that Kelly was in her room, alive, but did not want to be disturbed or specifically did not want to speak to Pritchett.

OK. "Possible" now - but you were talking about "likely". I suppose you do understand the differences between those two concepts, so why do you now just say that this other alternative is "possible"? And how do you position that possibility in relation to the other two "most likely" possibilities?

What contents in which sources make you say all this? Do you know that?

It seems to me that all you want to do is argue further about the time of death. But I would suggest that Mrs Pritchett's statement does not assist us in any way in establishing the time of death.

So here is a suggestion. Could you give the reasons for your suggestion?

Kind regards, Pierre