Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

As to the coroners remarks, "[I]The Coroner: You must be very careful about your evidence, because it is different to other peoples." There is no reference at all to medical evidence, its seems more obviously to allude to remarks other witnesses made, not just the one physician.

If you think there was some evidence other than the medical evidence that was inconsistent with Mrs Maxwell's evidence then what was it?

You can't just hide behind the coroner's remark, as if he had access to some secret pool of knowledge.

I have no doubt it was the medical evidence that was prominent in his mind, possibly the 'scream' evidence too, but that's all there was.

[David Orsam]

When you have a witness who has no corroborations and no proven relationship with the deceased, it needn't be the basis for speculative scenarios.

You look at it the wrong way round. We have a witness who has given sworn testimony for which there is no real contradictory evidence. What good reason is there to doubt it?

[David Orsam]

And Prater. Yes, you are right and David is wrong. It is an established fact that he is often wrong, but refuses to admit it. Instead he is giving other people belittling comments.

Here is a good example of David being wrong. In an earlier post in this thread he wrote:

"Originally Posted by David Orsam

My statement that there was no evidence contradicting the evidence of Mrs Maxwell is entirely accurate."

Of course there was evidence contradicting it.

Firstly you have the source of Dr Bond giving his view on the TOD.

Secondly you have the sources for the coroner asking Prater about hearing any beds or tables being pulled about, at the time Prater woke up in the night, at about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four.

And thirdly you have two independent sources for the cry "Oh, murder!", also heard before or about four o´clock.

So David´s statment is not entirely accurate, but entirely wrong.

David choses to dismiss these sources in favour of his own idea. But these sources are there and will not disappear from the past whatever David believes. His statements only show that he does not know anything about academic history.

Pierre as usual not reading posts properly and failing to appreciate that all his points have already been dealt with by me.

The medical evidence cannot be relied on. Dr Bond, incidentally, was not a witness at the inquest but I don't want to make a point about it because Dr Phillips' post-mortem report no doubt said roughly the same thing.

Prater gave sworn testimony that the cry of murder during the night was not uncommon, therefore there is no certainty that it was connected in any way with Kelly's murder. It cannot be said to contradict Mrs Maxwell's evidence.

So I repeat that - once the medical opinion is discarded, as it must be - there is no evidence contradicting Mrs Maxwell's evidence.

[David Orsam]

You're going around in circles now. As I pointed out no one needed to see Maxwell speak to Kelly, all they had to do was see Kelly between 8a and 10a on the morning of her murder.

I was responding to your comment: "There is no corroboration that she spoke to Kelly on the day she was murdered."

Perhaps you meant to say there is no corroboration that Kelly was alive on Friday morning. Yes we all know that there were no other witnesses who gave evidence to this effect but, at the same time, there were no witnesses who can tell us she was dead at that time either.

[David Orsam]

and that Kelly was somewhat of a local celebrity in a small way,

How so?

[David Orsam]

As pointed out (more eloquently then I did) by others, the medical evidence contradicts her testimony.

As has been pointed out on this forum by others, more eloquently than I can, the medical evidence most certainly does not contradict Maxwell's testimony for the simple reason that it was impossible for the doctors to tell us what time Kelly was murdered.

[Columbo]

I was responding to your comment: "There is no corroboration that she spoke to Kelly on the day she was murdered."

Perhaps you meant to say there is no corroboration that Kelly was alive on Friday morning. Yes we all know that there were no other witnesses who gave evidence to this effect but, at the same time, there were no witnesses who can tell us she was dead at that time either.

True but at the same time we could theoretically say that since she didn't answer the door when Pritchett came calling that would be some proof she was dead.
So yes what I have been trying to say is Maxwell says she saw her on Friday Morning and no one else did. I think I said that in another post. We only need one other person to say they saw her in the morning, not necessarily with Maxwell. That would corroborate her story.

Columbo

[Columbo]

As has been pointed out on this forum by others, more eloquently than I can, the medical evidence most certainly does not contradict Maxwell's testimony for the simple reason that it was impossible for the doctors to tell us what time Kelly was murdered.

That's kind of where your argument falls apart. Can the medicos give an exact time of death? no. Based on their 20 + years experience dealing with dead bodies in 1888 can they give a reasonable assessment? yes they can.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

True but at the same time we could theoretically say that since she didn't answer the door when Pritchett came calling that would be some proof she was dead.

How is that possible or logical given that the Pritchett account is 100% consistent with Maxwell's evidence that Kelly was up early that morning?

Incidentally, I love the way you don't for one second seem to think that Pritchett might have muddled up the day that she knocked on Kelly's door (even though her account was never given on oath) but when it comes to Mrs Maxwell all the rules are changed!

[David Orsam]

We only need one other person to say they saw her in the morning, not necessarily with Maxwell. That would corroborate her story.

There are newspaper reports of other people seeing Kelly alive that morning if it helps.

[David Orsam]

That's kind of where your argument falls apart. Can the medicos give an exact time of death? no. Based on their 20 + years experience dealing with dead bodies in 1888 can they give a reasonable assessment? yes they can.

No they can't give "a reasonable assessment", that's the point.

As I've previously mentioned, the 20+ years of experience is utterly irrelevant.

[Columbo]

No they can't give "a reasonable assessment", that's the point.

As I've previously mentioned, the 20+ years of experience is utterly irrelevant.

That's a pretty bold statement. Where's your proof?

Columbo

[Columbo]

How is that possible or logical given that the Pritchett account is 100% consistent with Maxwell's evidence that Kelly was up early that morning?

Incidentally, I love the way you don't for one second seem to think that Pritchett might have muddled up the day that she knocked on Kelly's door (even though her account was never given on oath) but when it comes to Mrs Maxwell all the rules are changed!

We're not talking about Pritchett, we're talking about Maxwell. So given under oath you think makes a difference? That's a little naive. People lie all the time under oath, especially for their 15 minutes of fame.

Columbo

[Columbo]

There are newspaper reports of other people seeing Kelly alive that morning if it helps.

Can you point me in the direction of one of them? I haven't seen that yet.


Columbo

[David Orsam]

That's a pretty bold statement. Where's your proof?

I'm going to refer you to Jessica Snyder Sachs, Time of Death: The True Story of the Search for Death’s Stopwatch, William Heinemann, 2002 (also, I believe, published as Time of Death: Nature, Forensics and the Search for Death's Stopwatch).