Let there be light!

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[David Orsam]

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.

It goes back to my point that it could potentially have brought the medical profession, and indeed the inquest itself, into disrepute by having a respectable witness testify that she saw Kelly alive at 8:00am followed by a doctor giving his opinion that Kelly was dead at 2:00am. And I would go further by saying that, regardless of what Dr Phillips might have written in his report, I very much doubt he would have wanted to express such an opinion in open court in view of Maxwell's evidence. I'm not saying that the doctor and the Coroner both necessarily thought Maxwell was correct but it would have been a huge risk to take. And if Maxwell was wrong but Prater/Lewis heard Kelly screaming as she was being murdered then it was still a problem (if Phillips agreed with Bond) because the scream was some two or three after Bond's estimated time of death.

[Wickerman]

It's not a matter of thinking about it, it's the policy of the Coroner's Office. He must be able to establish a time of death as accurately as possible. That falls under the "When and Where". I'm sorry but thems the rules.

Columbo

Hi Columbo.
I appreciate your opinion, one of the drawbacks here is we can only use the Coroner's Act that was prevalent at the time of the murders.
I think we have to accept the Coroner's Act has evolved from 1888 to something more encompassing today.

[David Orsam]

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.

Quite likely and Phillips was the local divisional surgeon so probably would have told Abberline what time he though Kelly was murdered. Whether that affected the direction of the police investigation, however, I really have no view.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam, why are you wasting your time?

I don't know. I see a post (by anyone) and respond to it if I have something to say. I guess I must like wasting time.

Am enjoying your posts though. Do keep it up.

[Pierre]

It goes back to my point that it could potentially have brought the medical profession, and indeed the inquest itself, into disrepute by having a respectable witness testify that she saw Kelly alive at 8:00am followed by a doctor giving his opinion that Kelly was dead at 2:00am. And I would go further by saying that, regardless of what Dr Phillips might have written in his report, I very much doubt he would have wanted to express such an opinion in open court in view of Maxwell's evidence. I'm not saying that the doctor and the Coroner both necessarily thought Maxwell was correct but it would have been a huge risk to take. And if Maxwell was wrong but Prater/Lewis heard Kelly screaming as she was being murdered then it was still a problem (if Phillips agreed with Bond) because the scream was some two or three after Bond's estimated time of death.

So much storytelling for nothing.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

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.

Hi David,

This discussion actually led to something!

I think I know now how I can find out if we have any reason to think that Kelly was alive at 8.30 in the morning.

I will try this hypothesis (it is just an hypothesis) as soon as I can.

Thanks for a good discussion, David. You are contributing to the case.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Congratulations David! The great Pierre certifies that you are contributing to the case!

[Fisherman]

Congratulations David! The great Pierre certifies that you are contributing to the case!

But can we invest in that...?

[Columbo]

Hi Columbo.
I appreciate your opinion, one of the drawbacks here is we can only use the Coroner's Act that was prevalent at the time of the murders.
I think we have to accept the Coroner's Act has evolved from 1888 to something more encompassing today.

Absolutely. I will concede to that.

Columbo