Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

Pierre, I am very willing to learn and want to develop a "historical education" and I don't wish to be rude but you are, of course, just a name ("Pierre") on a screen and could be a schoolboy, or schoolgirl, posting unrelenting garbage.

So in order to assist me to develop my historical education, could you kindly direct me to some published historians who have written about murder investigations and who, in doing so, have discussed the "tendency" of sources in the way you have done so on this forum?

Given that you tell us your approach is the proper historical method I assume you must be able to provide me with loads of examples. Because I am sure you are not conducting a radical and groundbreaking approach to history on this forum which has never been done before by any published historian.

I look forward to your reply with a list of examples of murder investigating historians I can read to educate myself.

Pierre, you haven't provided a list of examples as requested above.

Does this mean that I should conclude that what you are doing in this forum with your source criticism and your "tendencies" has never been done by any historian ever before?

[David Orsam]

He didnīt.

Again, I don't know what this means. Wickerman did say that it was part of the Coroner's duty to offer a time of death at the conclusion of the inquest, if that is what you are challenging.

[David Orsam]

He just wanted to get out of it quickly.

And your source for saying that coroner wanted to get out of the inquest quickly is please Pierre?

[David Orsam]

He didnīt.

By whom? Poor destitute people without teeth in their mouths?

I'm afraid I have no idea what this means Pierre. While I appreciate that you would have no problem with a witness testifying that they spoke to a woman at 8:00am followed by a doctor saying that the same woman was murdered some six or seven hours earlier, I think most people - by which I mean most normal people who are not advanced academic historians with the ability to conduct brilliant source criticisms and extract tendencies from evidence - would conclude, and would have concluded in 1888, that there was something not right about it.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman.

Claiming to hear ,,oh murder!" adds an extra dimension to Prater,s and Lewis, stories. Prater states that she had spoke to Mary Jane earlier in the evening plus heard the outcry. Lewis sees the lurking man plus hears the sxream of ,,murder,,. It could be that none of the other residents had any interaction with Mary Jane that evening/early morning, only hearing ,,oh murder!,, somewhere in the middle of the night. The police could have reasoned Prater and Lewis were their best witnesses, and the other residents were merely supplemental statements establishing what they had gathered from the two ladies but adding no additional dimension to the case.

Very true, Mr Devil! But it remains that we cannot know whether these two women were the real McCoy or not. I have my doubts.

[David Orsam]

According to which newspaper(s)?

With your inability to use the quote function properly, Pierre, it's sometimes hard to know what you are responding to but if you are asking me which newspaper said that Mrs Maxwell was a respectable woman I am referring to the fact that she was the wife of a lodging house deputy, Henry Maxwell, as per her statement to the police which is, I believe, an official source.

[David Orsam]

Wikipedia Article about Inquest (England and Wales)

The coroner's jurisdiction is limited to determining who the deceased was and how, when and where they came by their death. When the death is suspected to have been either sudden with unknown cause, violent, or unnatural, the coroner decides whether to hold a post-mortem examination and, if necessary, an inquest.

Australia ACT website:

Findings

A Coroner holding an inquest must find, if possible:

• the identity of the deceased;

• when and where the death happened;

• the manner and cause of death, and

• in the case of the suspected death of a person — that the person has died.

That is also the case in the USA. The coroner, if possible, must establish time of death i.e., when the person died.

I think I know what Alice must have felt like in Wonderland. Having posted extracts from the Coroners Act (of 1887), which was the relevant legislation under which the Kelly inquest was conducted, someone comes back at me with a Wikipedia entry for modern inquests citing rules for inquests in Australia and the USA in the process!!!!

I wouldn't mind but I already made clear that one purpose of an inquest in 1888 was to inquire as to "where and when the deceased died" and that it was for the jury to give their verdict "setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them...when, and where the deceased came by his death."

I already said this!!!

For those who can't read or comprehend, I was responding to Wickerman's statement that it was part of the Coroner's duty to offer an official time of death at the conclusion of the inquest.

[Columbo]

Just to pick up on this.

I don't really see how the doctor, giving his evidence after Mrs Maxwell (a respectable woman who insisted she saw MJK alive at 8am), could have stood in the witness box at the inquest and estimated a time of death of 1-2am without the possibility of the medical profession being held up to ridicule and mockery. Nor do I see how it was possible for the Coroner to come to a definitive conclusion based on the evidence before him.

Can I ask though, Jon, what is your basis for saying it was part of the Coroner's duty to offer a time of death at the conclusion of the inquest? The Coroner's Act simply says he has to inquire as to "where and when the deceased died" and who last saw the deceased alive. His duty is to sum up the evidence at the conclusion of the case but it is for the jury to give their verdict "setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them...when, and where the deceased came by his death."

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?

Wikipedia Article about Inquest (England and Wales)

The coroner's jurisdiction is limited to determining who the deceased was and how, when and where they came by their death. When the death is suspected to have been either sudden with unknown cause, violent, or unnatural, the coroner decides whether to hold a post-mortem examination and, if necessary, an inquest.

Australia ACT website:

Findings

A Coroner holding an inquest must find, if possible:

• the identity of the deceased;

• when and where the death happened;

• the manner and cause of death, and

• in the case of the suspected death of a person — that the person has died.

That is also the case in the USA. The coroner, if possible, must establish time of death i.e., when the person died.

Columbo

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;386054]Just to pick up on this. [QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I don't really see how the doctor, giving his evidence after Mrs Maxwell (

a respectable woman

According to which newspaper(s)?

who insisted she saw MJK alive at 8am), could have stood in the witness box at the inquest and estimated a time of death of 1-2am

He didnīt.

without the possibility of the medical profession being held up to ridicule and mockery.

By whom? Poor destitute people without teeth in their mouths?

Nor do I see how it was possible for the Coroner to come to a definitive conclusion based on the evidence before him.

He just wanted to get out of it quickly.

Can I ask though, Jon, what is your basis for saying it was part of the Coroner's duty to offer a time of death at the conclusion of the inquest?

He didnīt.

Regards, Pierre

[MsWeatherwax]

Thank you. That's about the nicest response on this thread so far

Columbo

Quite alright, Columbo. Glad my mental database of incredibly useless information was helpful lol.

[Elamarna]

Just to pick up on this.

I don't really see how the doctor, giving his evidence after Mrs Maxwell (a respectable woman who insisted she saw MJK alive at 8am), could have stood in the witness box at the inquest and estimated a time of death of 1-2am without the possibility of the medical profession being held up to ridicule and mockery. Nor do I see how it was possible for the Coroner to come to a definitive conclusion based on the evidence before him.

Can I ask though, Jon, what is your basis for saying it was part of the Coroner's duty to offer a time of death at the conclusion of the inquest? The Coroner's Act simply says he has to inquire as to "where and when the deceased died" and who last saw the deceased alive. His duty is to sum up the evidence at the conclusion of the case but it is for the jury to give their verdict "setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them...when, and where the deceased came by his death."

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?

David,

Maybe that depends on the case and the consequences of a TOD.
It just so happens that such was important in the recent Hillsborough inquest. There the issue was could victims have been saved, if emergency treatment had been given, so TOD was very important obviously

The only reason I can see it having any reason to be looked at it at all in the Kelly case is the very evidence of Mrs Maxwell; but it seems the coroner had already decided on a probably TOD before taking her testimony.
Have to say I fail to see how it has any bearing in this inquest, given what an inquest is for

Steve

[David Orsam]

I would say the same about an official time of death being offered at the conclusion of the inquest. This was part of the Coroner's duty yet incredibly, none was given.

Just to pick up on this.

I don't really see how the doctor, giving his evidence after Mrs Maxwell (a respectable woman who insisted she saw MJK alive at 8am), could have stood in the witness box at the inquest and estimated a time of death of 1-2am without the possibility of the medical profession being held up to ridicule and mockery. Nor do I see how it was possible for the Coroner to come to a definitive conclusion based on the evidence before him.

Can I ask though, Jon, what is your basis for saying it was part of the Coroner's duty to offer a time of death at the conclusion of the inquest? The Coroner's Act simply says he has to inquire as to "where and when the deceased died" and who last saw the deceased alive. His duty is to sum up the evidence at the conclusion of the case but it is for the jury to give their verdict "setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them...when, and where the deceased came by his death."

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?

[David Orsam]

In this context, it may be added that Prater and Lewis were not the only ones who spoke of somebody crying out "Murder!".

No, that is the supposed conclusion of the author of a supposed article whose name you cannot, apparently, recall. But what is the evidence on which such a conclusion was based?

[Columbo]

Hi Columbo.

As someone else has said, emptying times vary wildly between people, so her stomach contents could be completely irrelevant.

There is evidence that a poor or restricted diet can also result in gastroparesis (delayed emptying of the stomach contents). Although Mary was apparently quite stocky, it's doubtful that someone reduced to prostitution, living on the 'worst street in London' (and with a possible alcohol problem) had a particularly brilliant diet. Different types of foods also have an effect on how fast the stomach empties - foods high in fiber will speed it up, while fatty foods will slow it down. It's not possible to know how the fish and potatoes Mary ate were cooked - if it was in the form of fried fish and chips (which were extremely popular at the time, I believe), this could have a significant effect on her digestion time, particularly if it was cooked in lard which essentially pure fat.

There are really far to many variables for stomach contents to be really useful in my opinion.

I know this has been touched upon before in this thread, but even today you will frequently find that time of death can only be ascertained to be within the last 24-48 hours, and occasionally an even larger window.

I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that it's a subject that is only really starting to be properly studied - there are multiple 'Body Farms' in the US now, and there was talk of one in Lincolnshire in the UK but that fell apart.

I have no doubt that the doctors involved in Mary's case were working to the best of their knowledge at the time, but the truth is it was (and still is) a judgement call. It's definitely not an exact science.

Alas, in my opinion, Mary's exact time of death is yet another un-solvable mystery.

Thank you. That's about the nicest response on this thread so far

Columbo

[Robert St Devil]

It lends a different light to the affair as a whole, and I have never been able to fully understand how the police were able to conclude that Prater and Lewis spoke the truth, whereas the others did not.

Hello Fisherman.

Claiming to hear ,,oh murder!" adds an extra dimension to Prater,s and Lewis, stories. Prater states that she had spoke to Mary Jane earlier in the evening plus heard the outcry. Lewis sees the lurking man plus hears the sxream of ,,murder,,. It could be that none of the other residents had any interaction with Mary Jane that evening/early morning, only hearing ,,oh murder!,, somewhere in the middle of the night. The police could have reasoned Prater and Lewis were their best witnesses, and the other residents were merely supplemental statements establishing what they had gathered from the two ladies but adding no additional dimension to the case.