Let there be light!

[Pierre]

Which questions have I ignored? Do you mean all the ones I answered individually?

So now you use the strategy of pretending. Well, I will remind you:

Which are the exact sources that you refer to when you say "not really different to other people´s"?

What specific people?

What evidence of those specific people?

Which parts of the inquest are you referring to?

Which statements of other people?

[Columbo]

The coroner's remarks were unfair because Maxwell's evidence was not really different to other people's but the fact that she insisted that her evidence was correct, despite these unfair remarks by a person in authority, should give us pause.

Hey David,

Why would you think Maxwell's account is not different to others? She said she spoke to MJK on the morning of her murder and then saw her talking to a man in the streets on the morning of her murder. Her account differs from the known facts that were brought out at the inquest by other witnesses and doctors, and MJK was dead at the time she was allegedly seen by Maxwell. That makes it completely different and the coroner was correct. He was basically telling her if you're lying it's best you think about what your about to say, because we know when the woman died.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

So now you use the strategy of pretending. Well, I will remind you:

Which are the exact sources that you refer to when you say "not really different to other people´s"?

What specific people?

What evidence of those specific people?

Which parts of the inquest are you referring to?

Which statements of other people?

You are showing me that you haven't, in fact, read and understood my post #351 but I'm happy to re-post the answers to your questions:

Which are the exact sources that you refer to when you say "not really different to other people´s"? - The sources are MJ/SP/C/NE/0376/001-011 - Inquest papers for Mary Jane Kelly held at the London Metropolitan Archives.

What specific people? - All the other witnesses at the inquest of Mary Jane Kelly.

What evidence of those specific people? - All of it.

Which parts of the inquest are you referring to? - All of it.

Which statements of other people? - All of them.

[Pierre]

Hey David,

Why would you think Maxwell's account is not different to others? She said she spoke to MJK on the morning of her murder and then saw her talking to a man in the streets on the morning of her murder. Her account differs from the known facts that were brought out at the inquest by other witnesses and doctors, and MJK was dead at the time she was allegedly seen by Maxwell. That makes it completely different and the coroner was correct. He was basically telling her if you're lying it's best you think about what your about to say, because we know when the woman died.

Columbo

Hi Columbo,

Yes, that is what David thinks. And as he said " "not really different to other people´s" he should have done some comparative research. And therefore he should be able to answer the questions I asked him.

Now, David will tell you that Kelly was alive in the morning. It is a much debated question here. I am certain that she was dead. (Yes, David! Certain! Terrible, isn´t it?)

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Her account differs from the known facts that were brought out at the inquest by other witnesses and doctors

Today, Columbo, we know (although perhaps you don't) that it was not possible for doctors to estimate an accurate time of death (although you should be aware that there was no estimate as to the time of death brought out in evidence at the inquest) so that, on the medical evidence, Kelly could have been murdered after 9:00am on the Friday.

As for how Mrs Maxwell's account differs from the known facts brought out at the inquest of any other witnesses, I suggest you are wrong. But if you disagree please tell me what witnesses and what facts you are referring to.

[David Orsam]

Now, David will tell you that Kelly was alive in the morning.

David won't tell you that actually Pierre.

What David will tell you is that there is no real evidence which contradicts the evidence of Mrs Maxwell.

[Pierre]

You are showing me that you haven't, in fact, read and understood my post #351 but I'm happy to re-post the answers to your questions:

Which are the exact sources that you refer to when you say "not really different to other people´s"? - The sources are MJ/SP/C/NE/0376/001-011 - Inquest papers for Mary Jane Kelly held at the London Metropolitan Archives.

What specific people? - All the other witnesses at the inquest of Mary Jane Kelly.

What evidence of those specific people? - All of it.

Which parts of the inquest are you referring to? - All of it.

Which statements of other people? - All of them.

Of course I have understood it. In that post you only say what they did not do or say. But absence of practice or statements in historical sources are not reliable.

Therefore, you should answer the questions. And now that you tried to do that, I can see that you are desperate. "All of it." "All of them".

I will not bother you with this anymore. It is clear to all (!) that you have no answers.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Therefore, you should answer the questions. And now that you tried to do that, I can see that you are desperate. "All of it." "All of them".

I have answered your questions Pierre. The basic answer is that Mrs Maxwell's evidence is not inconsistent with all of the other evidence at the inquest. I could list all the witnesses individually if you wanted me to but that would be a bit pointless.

[Pierre]

I have answered your questions Pierre. The basic answer is that Mrs Maxwell's evidence is not inconsistent with all of the other evidence at the inquest. I could list all the witnesses individually if you wanted me to but that would be a bit pointless.

OK, you obviously want to be bothered. So, now you are saying that the basic answer is that "Mrs Maxwell's evidence is not inconsistent with all of the other evidence at the inquest". But it is not "the basic answer" to the questions. You can not answer all the questions I asked you with that sentence. Would you like to try? Here we go:

Q 1. Which are the exact sources that you refer to when you say "not really different to other people´s"?

"Mrs Maxwell's evidence is not inconsistent with all of the other evidence at the inquest".

Q 2. What specific people?

"Mrs Maxwell's evidence is not inconsistent with all of the other evidence at the inquest".

Q 3. What evidence of those specific people?

"Mrs Maxwell's evidence is not inconsistent with all of the other evidence at the inquest".

Q 4. Which parts of the inquest are you referring to?

"Mrs Maxwell's evidence is not inconsistent with all of the other evidence at the inquest".

Q 5. Which statements of other people?

"Mrs Maxwell's evidence is not inconsistent with all of the other evidence at the inquest".

Did that sentence answer the questions? No.

And then you say "I could list all the witnesses individually if you wanted me to but that would be a bit pointless."

A list of the witnesses is a list of names. It is not answers to questions.

You were supposed to have made an analysis before you made the statement, David. Then you would have been able to answer the questions.

If you want to be bothered again, just say so.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Would you like to try?

Not really, no. Apart from the individual answers that I have already provided to each one of your questions, the questions you ask were all pre-answered in #351.

I can only suggest you re-read that post because you clearly haven't understood it.

[Pierre]

Not really, no. Apart from the individual answers that I have already provided to each one of your questions, the questions you ask were all pre-answered in #351.

I can only suggest you re-read that post because you clearly haven't understood it.

OK. No, the problem is that you are not scientific. You should do a comparative analysis. But since you can´t or don´t want to, we leave it there.

[David Orsam]

OK. No, the problem is that you are not scientific.

I can assure you that's not the problem here Pierre.

I have already analysed the evidence. You are free to do whatever analysis you want. The correct outcome will be exactly the same.

[Michael W Richards]

Ive included my responses in your captured quote:

She wasn't, in fact, warned that her evidence "disagrees with all the other evidence in this case" nor was she essentially "warned off from giving it". She was told to be careful by the coroner because her evidence was "different to other people's" That is undoubtedly because the coroner relied on the medical evidence which we now know to be unreliable and probably also assumed that the scream in the night fixed the time of the murder.

Nice of you to decide what the coroner relied upon. And for pointing out that "disagrees" and "differs" cannot be synonymous.

The coroner's remarks were unfair because Maxwell's evidence was not really different to other people's but the fact that she insisted that her evidence was correct, despite these unfair remarks by a person in authority, should give us pause.

Not one witness that we can verify knew Mary at all saw her alive after 11:45pm on Thursday night. And 2 of the witnesses lived in either the court itself or in 26 Dorset. That goes for both Hutch and Maxwell.

I don't know how you think that Mrs Maxwell's evidence that she had spoken to Kelly twice could be corroborated by any of the witnesses, or whether any attempt was made by the police to corroborate it, but it was never undermined by any of the evidence in the case.

Even if it were true and could be corroborated it does not constitute any kind of relationship between the 2 or insinuate that Mary would know "Corries" name, or confide in her how she was feeling at any particular time.

Nor do I know why you think I agree with you that the killer did not start a large fire to see what he was doing. I have pointed out that, with curtains covering the windows, the room might well have been in darkness throughout the dull morning.

Oh, so you feel the killer killed Mary in daylight... (muslin curtains), and started a large fire too? Its a wonder he didnt post a sign outside the entrance to the courtyard that a murder was taking place and to please come back later.

Considering that you tell us that you have a detailed "scenario" in which time of death was 3.45am, whereas I don't have any set idea at all as to the time of death, then perhaps it is actually you who tends to believe what you want, not me.

If you could read as well and as fast as you derogatorily dismiss ideas, you would note I did not EVER say that the time of death was 3:45am, or that the murder started at 3:45am. As I said, I follow both physical and circumstantial clues which suggest that no violent act occurred immediately after that cry.

You fancy yourself quite clever as anyone who reads here can tell, but youre actually quite obtuse when it comes to interpretation of data, or accurately reading other posts. As you can tell Ive tired of your air of superiority and I intend to out you on your factual and interpretive mistakes when I have time.

[David Orsam]

Nice of you to decide what the coroner relied upon. And for pointing out that "disagrees" and "differs" cannot be synonymous.

I didn't point out anything of the sort. You misunderstood. The Coroner did not say that Mrs Maxwell's evidence differed "from all the other evidence in the case". He said it differed from "other people's" evidence. You see the difference I assume?

If you think the coroner relied upon anything else fell free to suggest what it might have been.

Not one witness that we can verify knew Mary at all saw her alive after 11:45pm on Thursday night.

So what? If she was asleep all night that would be expected wouldn't it?

And I don't know what you mean by "witness we can verify". What is the definition of a witness who can be verified and why is Mrs Maxwell not one?

Oh, so you feel the killer killed Mary in daylight... (muslin curtains), and started a large fire too?

I don't feel anything of the sort. I'm saying that there is no evidence which contradicts the evidence of Mrs Maxwell. I'm saying that Mary's room might well have been sufficiently dark on the dull morning of 9 November to require some light to be able to see. Also that there is nothing about the existence of the fire which contradicts the evidence of Mrs Maxwell.

If you could read as well and as fast as you derogatorily dismiss ideas, you would note I did not EVER say that the time of death was 3:45am, or that the murder started at 3:45am. As I said, I follow both physical and circumstantial clues which suggest that no violent act occurred immediately after that cry.

Here were your exact words:

"In my scenario, with supporting trustworthy witness testimony and physical evidence, Mary was likely killed sometime after the call heard by 2 witnesses at approx 3:45am."

I'm perfectly happy with my summary of your so-called "scenario".

[Pierre]

Ive included my responses in your captured quote:

Oh, so you feel the killer killed Mary in daylight... (muslin curtains), and started a large fire too? Its a wonder he didnt post a sign outside the entrance to the courtyard that a murder was taking place and to please come back later.