Let there be light!

[Wickerman]

So your claim that nothing contradicts Maxwell isn't accurate really, because nothing in her statement is worthy of belief. Nothing is validated by a second source.

Have you forgotten this Michael?

"When asked by the police how she could fix the time of the morning, Mrs. Maxwell replied, "Because I went to the milkshop for some milk, and I had not before been there for a long time, and that she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time". On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct, and the cross-over was also found in Kelly's room."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881112.html

[Columbo]

Have you forgotten this Michael?

"When asked by the police how she could fix the time of the morning, Mrs. Maxwell replied, "Because I went to the milkshop for some milk, and I had not before been there for a long time, and that she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time". On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct, and the cross-over was also found in Kelly's room."
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881112.html

Thanks Wickerman, this is very interesting. Orsam should like it.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

Actually the testimony of others proves my point. Mrs. Harvey, Maxwell, Pritchett, Barnett, McCarthy, Hutchinson, Bowyer. They all knew her by site and all knew her name. So to say she didn't know alot of people is probably inaccurate.

Well I didn't say that "she didn't know a lot of people". You were the one who said that she knew "a lot of people".

To support that assertion you produce a list of 7 people, two of whom are her landlord and his assistant and one of whom was her lover. You've missed out Mrs Cox incidentally.

No-one is saying she didn't have friends but to produce a list of 10 people, when we are discussing the population living around Dorset Street, is risible.

[David Orsam]

people have described how clean she was, she never wore a bonnet, she had long read hair. This is someone you would notice, especially if she was gacking in the street, so the only person who saw her was a woman going to get her husbands breakfast. Not likely.

With respect, I don't think your opinion that "This is someone you would notice" has any validity whatsoever. As if Mary's movements were monitored by the local population on a daily basis. It's absurd! And, in any case, you seem to think that everyone living in Dorset Street was going to come forward and assist the police. I don't think so somehow.

[David Orsam]

That's not true either. Digestive times are still used today. Body temperature is still used except they mainly use an internal temp like the liver. Rigor mortis maybe not so much but even the medicals back then said environmental factors may have played a factor in the rigor mortis timing so they knew more about it then you think.

I'm not saying that medical men knew nothing about rigor mortis, I'm saying it could not help them accurately assist the time of death. Something which you implicitly accept by saying that rigor mortis is "not so much" used today. There's no need for me to argue with you about body temperature because unless you are saying that the temperature of the liver was taken by Dr Phillips or Bond then you've conceded that one too. I have no doubt that digestion is considered today but the question is whether that can produce an accurate estimate of the time of death. The problem is that they still can't do it today due to there not being a standard rate of digestion and they certainly couldn't do it in 1888, especially in circumstances where there was no evidence as to when MJK had eaten her last meal.

[David Orsam]

Nope that won't work either. As I said before it could've been another day she was drunk and another morning Maxwell talked to her. There is no corroboration that she spoke to Kelly on the day she was murdered. Someone else has to have seen it or at least see MJK.

It "won't work" only if you ignore what I posted about the likelihood of Mrs Maxwell confusing the day. Which is exactly what you have done.

It is of course true that no-one else came forward to say that they saw Mrs Maxwell speak to Kelly on the Friday morning but that does not change the fact that it was the sworn evidence of Mrs Maxwell at the inquest that she did speak to her and that this evidence is not contradicted by any other evidence presented at the inquest (or any other evidence that we know of).

[David Orsam]

What I'm saying is that Maxwell thinks she spoke to Mary that morning when she actually spoke to her on Wednesday or Tuesday or Monday, I wasn't talking about the date of her statement.

If her statement was given to the police on the very day she said she spoke to Kelly, i.e. within hours of the conversation, what realistic chance is there of her having confused the day?

[David Orsam]

Thanks Wickerman, this is very interesting. Orsam should like it.

I'm perfectly aware of it but I'm confining my responses to the evidence presented at the inquest, which is why I haven't bothered to mention the newspaper reports of other people who said they saw MJK alive that morning.

[Michael W Richards]

That is what is known as a non sequitur. My statement that there was no evidence contradicting the evidence of Mrs Maxwell is entirely accurate.

What is not accurate, however, is your statement that:

"that there is no proof Maxwell knew Mary other than extremely casual hellos."

It's a misrepresentation of the evidence at the inquest. Mrs Maxwell never said anything about "extremely casual hellos". It's come from your imagination and shows that you are not looking at the evidence in an unbiased way.

Equally inaccurate is your reference to:

"the fact that she was warned her evidence "differed" from all other evidence as pointed out by the coroner".

As I have already mentioned, the coroner did not say that her evidence differed from ALL other evidence. You are imagining it. Furthermore, your reliance on this statement is misguided bearing in mind that the coroner must have had the medical evidence in mind when he made this statement but the doctors were not able to accurately estimate a time of death. Had the coroner known this he might well not have issued his "warning".

Then you refer to "the fact that Rigor was present at 1:30". This does not, however, mean that Kelly could not have been murdered between 9 and 10.30am.

Consequently, your suggestion that "anyone taking a prudent approach to investigating this crime would not factor her into the equation" is quite wrong and the very reverse is true. A prudent approach to the investigation must factor her evidence into the equation.

Inquest testimony, Caroline Maxwell..."I believe she was an unfortunate. On two occasions I spoke to her." That's not representative of a casual acquaintance? As to the coroners remarks, "[I]The Coroner: You must be very careful about your evidence, because it is different to other peoples." There is no reference at all to medical evidence, its seems more obviously to allude to remarks other witnesses made, not just the one physician.

When you have a witness who has no corroborations and no proven relationship with the deceased, it needn't be the basis for speculative scenarios.

[Pierre]

Have you forgotten this Michael?

"When asked by the police how she could fix the time of the morning, Mrs. Maxwell replied, "Because I went to the milkshop for some milk, and I had not before been there for a long time, and that she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time". On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct, and the cross-over was also found in Kelly's room."
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881112.html

There are so many problems with that article. Analyse it and you will see that.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Columbo;385736]

Actually the testimony of others proves my point. Mrs. Harvey, Maxwell, Pritchett, Barnett, McCarthy, Hutchinson, Bowyer. They all knew her by site and all knew her name. So to say she didn't know alot of people is probably inaccurate.

And Prater. Yes, you are right and David is wrong. It is an established fact that he is often wrong, but refuses to admit it. Instead he is giving other people belittling comments.

Here is a good example of David being wrong. In an earlier post in this thread he wrote:

"Originally Posted by David Orsam

My statement that there was no evidence contradicting the evidence of Mrs Maxwell is entirely accurate."

Of course there was evidence contradicting it.

Firstly you have the source of Dr Bond giving his view on the TOD.

Secondly you have the sources for the coroner asking Prater about hearing any beds or tables being pulled about, at the time Prater woke up in the night, at about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four.

And thirdly you have two independent sources for the cry "Oh, murder!", also heard before or about four o´clock.

So David´s statment is not entirely accurate, but entirely wrong.

David choses to dismiss these sources in favour of his own idea. But these sources are there and will not disappear from the past whatever David believes. His statements only show that he does not know anything about academic history.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Have you forgotten this Michael?

"When asked by the police how she could fix the time of the morning, Mrs. Maxwell replied, "Because I went to the milkshop for some milk, and I had not before been there for a long time, and that she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time". On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct, and the cross-over was also found in Kelly's room."
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881112.html

All that quote suggests Jon is that Maxwells claim that she went to the milkshop was apparently corroborated by someone at the milkshop. Not that Caroline knew Mary, not that Caroline saw that same woolen cross found in Marys room on that same morning, nor that Caroline saw Mary that morning.

[Columbo]

It "won't work" only if you ignore what I posted about the likelihood of Mrs Maxwell confusing the day. Which is exactly what you have done.

It is of course true that no-one else came forward to say that they saw Mrs Maxwell speak to Kelly on the Friday morning but that does not change the fact that it was the sworn evidence of Mrs Maxwell at the inquest that she did speak to her and that this evidence is not contradicted by any other evidence presented at the inquest (or any other evidence that we know of).

You're going around in circles now. As I pointed out no one needed to see Maxwell speak to Kelly, all they had to do was see Kelly between 8a and 10a on the morning of her murder.

As pointed out (more eloquently then I did) by others, the medical evidence contradicts her testimony. It's an interesting theory you propose and I'm not saying it wasn't possible, but it's extremely unlikely based on the information you provided in support of it.

Columbo

[Wickerman]

All that quote suggests Jon is that Maxwells claim that she went to the milkshop was apparently corroborated by someone at the milkshop. Not that Caroline knew Mary, not that Caroline saw that same woolen cross found in Marys room on that same morning, nor that Caroline saw Mary that morning.

Yes Michael, I am well aware of that, however generally when some aspect of a story finds corroboration the concession is given that the whole story is true.
We are not in a position to prove everything Maxwell said, but the very fact she was questioned about her sighting on the same day the sighting took place, but a few hours later, speaks very forcefully in favor of it being on the same day.

As to whether Maxwell knew Kelly, given their proximity and that Kelly was somewhat of a local celebrity in a small way, it is very likely she knew her. That said, I have always adopted the opinion that Maxwell did mistake another woman for Kelly that morning.

Likewise I think the reporter who wrote Lewis's story about seeing Kelly go out for some milk that morning misunderstood what Lewis said. He was talking about seeing Maxwell, not seeing Kelly - in my opinion. An honest mistake by the reporter.

[David Orsam]

Inquest testimony, Caroline Maxwell..."I believe she was an unfortunate. On two occasions I spoke to her." That's not representative of a casual acquaintance?

I know how many times Mrs Maxwell said she spoke to Kelly but there is no evidence that their conversations consisted of "extremely casual hellos", which is the comment of yours that I was challenging.