Let there be light!

[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.
What from the above are you suggesting we dismiss as false, and why?

I'll give you one example straight of the top of my head Jon. The news story that was reported that Kelly had a child living with her.

If you want me to delve into the stories reported about the Kelly murder from 9 November onwards I know I could produce quite a few more.

[David Orsam]

On the other hand I think you suggested this reporter, by coincidence?, just happened to locate the only two people in the whole of Dorset St. who claim to have known Mary Kelly?

Is this being realistic?

You are mischaracterising what I am saying. I'm not saying those men were "the only two people in the whole of Dorset St." who knew Kelly.

On the other hand, are you saying that everyone in Dorset Street knew her?

Also, don't you think it's strange: Detective Dew said that everyone who lived in Miller's Street spoke of Kelly's "sunny nature". Yet the reporter was told that Kelly engaged in street brawls and was "sudden and quick in quarrel, and - for a woman - handy with her fists".

Do you also wonder why the story said of the reporter: "as he stepped out into the darkness visible of Dorset-street from the glow-light of the lodging-house kitchen, the men laughed loudly and their laughter was carried up the street."? Why were they laughing so much?

[Wickerman]

Just wanted to respond to this. In the inquest papers we have statements from two residents of Millers Court, Cox and Venturney. Neither of them say that Mary Jane was sunny of nature and very popular, or something similar. On it's face, therefore, Dew's statement was untrue. And the idea that all the other residents of Millers Court included in their statements to the police a comment to the effect that Kelly was sunny of nature and very popular is not credible.

Neither the Court, nor the local press were charged with proving just how popular Mary Kelly was.
I posted a handful of sources which indicated, not proved, just indicated that Kelly was popular at the local level, in a small way a local celebrity.

Why her popularity is of significance to you still escapes me but I was not saying I could prove it. There are no sources of the time tasked with 'proving' it, but by the same token none of the period sources 'prove' she was insignificant, or just blended into the background, or easily forgotten.

Points such as her local popularity are details which may surface within an overall context of researching her background from the locals. 'May' surface, and not from everybody, and especially not from court records, such details are not pertinent to the case under investigation and can safely be omitted from the record.

Interviews with locals given in the press are the best reliable source on this bearing in mind the subject is of little major importance in a murder investigation so an occasional reference is all that we can expect.

[Wickerman]

I'll give you one example straight of the top of my head Jon. The news story that was reported that Kelly had a child living with her.

If you want me to delve into the stories reported about the Kelly murder from 9 November onwards I know I could produce quite a few more.

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?

[Wickerman]

You are mischaracterising what I am saying. I'm not saying those men were "the only two people in the whole of Dorset St." who knew Kelly.

Ok, fair enough, I was alluding to an earlier comment you made...(below)

However, it doesn't matter a great deal if the dosser's story is true or not because this is the only supporting evidence you have produced to show that Kelly was known outside Millers Court and it only relates to a few men in a single local lodging house.

Various sources indicate she was popular, none of these sources were required to publish an exhaustive list of people who knew her.

[David Orsam]

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?

Come on Jon are you serious?

Firstly, am I even suggesting that the Echo reporter invented the dosser?

Secondly, I can give you loads more examples.

What about the reported bloodstains leading from Brady Street to Bucks Row after the Nichols murder, described as zig-zagging along the road? Should we be accepting them as definitely there because they were reported in a newspaper?

Did the scavengers who were cleaning the roads help to cart the body of Nichols off to the mortuary as reported in the East London Observer?

The Manchester Courier of 10 November reported that "The crime was first discovered by a young man named M'Carthy who went to the house yesterday with his mother to collect the rent" and who said "Mother, there's another murder" when he saw the body. Is that correct?

The Central News reported that Sir Charles Warren turned up at Millers Court at 2pm on 9 November. Is that correct?

The same agency reported that some "neighbours state they heard an altercation going on within the house in Miller's-court between the deceased and a man". Do we accept that as true?

Not everything in the newspapers is true Jon and I could give you a thousand more examples.

[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).

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.