Let there be light!

[Columbo]

Although Mrs Maxwell claimed that Mary told her that she had been "drinking for some days past". This is corroborated to some extent by Mary Ann Cox saying that Mary was "very drunk" when she saw her on the Thursday night.

I would also point out that there is no corroboration that Catherine Pickett (or Pichell) ever knocked on Mary's door at 7.30am but you seemed happy to accept that as true.

that's not corroboration at all. It only means MJK was drunk on Thursday night. Corroboration of Maxwell would be someone else saw MJK that morning, whether she was throwing up in the streets or not. Someone else just had to see her.
Pickett very well may have been lying, but her story is just as plausible as Maxwell's. I never said Maxwell was lying, just that she was mistaken. Now Hutchinson, that's a whole different thread.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Mrs Maxwell is not a "discredited witness". You say there is nothing in the record that validates her claim that she knew or spoke to Mary but there is nothing in the record that contradicts her claim either.

To say that Mrs Maxwell spoke to Mary at a time when she was "lying dead in her room" when there is no real evidence as to the time that Mary died is only showing that you have a closed mind on this subject.

That last statement isn't entirely accurate. The medical evidence has to be given some weight as to the time of death. These were not incompentent doctors and they had seen plenty of crime scenes. They even continued investigating the next day as you well know, looking for heart remnants in the ashes. So to discard them whole hardily is not really proper.

Again there's a plausibility to Maxwells statement but not enough to override the Medicals estimations of time of death. I think if it happened she just got the day wrong.

Look at this as well. Mary knew alot of people. If she was at a pub having a drink she would've talked to someone else, most likely several people and none of them came forward. Not even the Barkeep who would've served her.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

that's not corroboration at all.

What are you talking about? Of course it is. It provides at least partial corroboration of Mrs Maxwell's claim that Mary said to her on the Friday morning that she had been "drinking for some days past", otherwise how could Mrs Maxwell have known that Mary had been drunk the previous night?

[David Orsam]

That last statement isn't entirely accurate. The medical evidence has to be given some weight as to the time of death.

It is entirely accurate Columbo. That was why I used the phrase "real evidence".

If you think I am suggesting that the doctors were incompetent then I'm afraid you just haven't understood the argument being made. It's not a question of incompetence. It simply was not physically possible for a doctor in 1888, however qualified or competent, to accurately estimate a time of death based on rigor mortis, body temperature of stomach contents. In fact, it's not much different today.

So when you say that there is not enough in Mrs Maxwell's statement to "override the Medicals estimations of time of death" you have got it all the wrong way round. The question should be is there anything in the medical evidence to override Mrs Maxwell's statement? The only answer in this respect can be a very firm "No" which is why the coroner's "warning" was so unfair.

[Columbo]

What are you talking about? Of course it is. It provides at least partial corroboration of Mrs Maxwell's claim that Mary said to her on the Friday morning that she had been "drinking for some days past", otherwise how could Mrs Maxwell have known that Mary had been drunk the previous night?

MJK being drunk or hung over doesn't need corroboration. Maxwell seeing Kelly is what needs to be corroborated.

"drinking some days past" could also mean Kelly was drinking Monday and Tuesday night and Maxwell saw her chucking up on the streets Wednesday morning, or it could've been Sunday and Monday and Maxwell saw her Tuesday morning. That part of her testimony means nothing, because the conversation could've happened on another day. Again to corroborate her story, Kelly would had to have been seen by someone else on Thursday morning between 8a and 9a, give or take a few minutes. There is no other way around that.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

I think if it happened she just got the day wrong.

This is a little unlikely bearing in mind that her statement bears the date 9th November 1888, the very same day that she claimed to have spoken to MJK. But if that date is wrong for some reason she could realistically only have given her statement to the police on Saturday 10th, i.e. the very next day, on which day she also related her account to a journalist for Lloyds Weekly News (and told him she spoke to MJK "yesterday"), so it's just not a case of her having to think back any distance in time.

[David Orsam]

MJK being drunk or hung over doesn't need corroboration. Maxwell seeing Kelly is what needs to be corroborated.

What is being corroborated is Maxwell's knowledge of Kelly being drunk which is corroboration of her claim to have spoken to Kelly. I mean, Kelly couldn't have told her she was drunk if she was dead?

I've already dealt with the issue of confused dates.

[Columbo]

It is entirely accurate Columbo. That was why I used the phrase "real evidence".

If you think I am suggesting that the doctors were incompetent then I'm afraid you just haven't understood the argument being made. It's not a question of incompetence. It simply was not physically possible for a doctor in 1888, however qualified or competent, to accurately estimate a time of death based on rigor mortis, body temperature of stomach contents. In fact, it's not much different today.

So when you say that there is not enough in Mrs Maxwell's statement to "override the Medicals estimations of time of death" you have got it all the wrong way round. The question should be is there anything in the medical evidence to override Mrs Maxwell's statement? The only answer in this respect can be a very firm "No" which is why the coroner's "warning" was so unfair.

Why would anyone put a lay witnesses testimony about a 2 minute conversation above the experienced 20 years plus police surgeon expert opinion? Except for the OJ trial that doesn't happen today.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

Look at this as well. Mary knew alot of people. If she was at a pub having a drink she would've talked to someone else, most likely several people and none of them came forward. Not even the Barkeep who would've served her.

Here's the problem Columbo. You are simply making things up.

"Mary knew a lot of people". Where does that come from in the evidence?

And what does it matter if she did unless she knew someone in the beer house on that particular morning? If the barkeep had served her that morning how would he have known it was her unless he already knew her by name? Identification after her murder was, for all practical purposes, impossible.

[David Orsam]

Why would anyone put a lay witnesses testimony about a 2 minute conversation above the experienced 20 years plus police surgeon expert opinion? Except for the OJ trial that doesn't happen today.

I don't know if you are not reading my posts or not understanding them.

It doesn't matter if the police surgeon had 100 or 1000 years of experience. He couldn't do what he was purporting to do. It was impossible.

[David Orsam]

Except for the OJ trial that doesn't happen today.

I'm guessing that must be a joke.

[Columbo]

Here's the problem Columbo. You are simply making things up.

"Mary knew a lot of people". Where does that come from in the evidence?

And what does it matter if she did unless she knew someone in the beer house on that particular morning? If the barkeep had served her that morning how would he have known it was her unless he already knew her by name? Identification after her murder was, for all practical purposes, impossible.

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.
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.

Columbo

[Columbo]

It is entirely accurate Columbo. That was why I used the phrase "real evidence".

If you think I am suggesting that the doctors were incompetent then I'm afraid you just haven't understood the argument being made. It's not a question of incompetence. It simply was not physically possible for a doctor in 1888, however qualified or competent, to accurately estimate a time of death based on rigor mortis, body temperature of stomach contents. In fact, it's not much different today.

So when you say that there is not enough in Mrs Maxwell's statement to "override the Medicals estimations of time of death" you have got it all the wrong way round. The question should be is there anything in the medical evidence to override Mrs Maxwell's statement? The only answer in this respect can be a very firm "No" which is why the coroner's "warning" was so unfair.

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.

Columbo

[Columbo]

What is being corroborated is Maxwell's knowledge of Kelly being drunk which is corroboration of her claim to have spoken to Kelly. I mean, Kelly couldn't have told her she was drunk if she was dead?

I've already dealt with the issue of confused dates.

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.

Columbo

[Columbo]

This is a little unlikely bearing in mind that her statement bears the date 9th November 1888, the very same day that she claimed to have spoken to MJK. But if that date is wrong for some reason she could realistically only have given her statement to the police on Saturday 10th, i.e. the very next day, on which day she also related her account to a journalist for Lloyds Weekly News (and told him she spoke to MJK "yesterday"), so it's just not a case of her having to think back any distance in time.

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.

Columbo