Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

The Lewis-sources, which David likes to refer to

This is quite extraordinary even by Pierre's bizarre standards.

Apart from the fact that I haven't mentioned Morris Lewis in this thread. I had never mentioned him until Pierre asked me to investigate his story!

On 22 March 2016, in the thread "MJK's Body Identification", Pierre wrote (underlining added):

"I think there might be a problem with the interpretations of the sources giving the statements of Maurice (Morris is also used in the press) Lewis.

Someone should look into this. I think it would be just the right job for David Orsam. I don´t communicate with him right now, but perhaps he will read this."

At Pierre's direct request, therefore, I examined the story told by Lewis over two threads and my ultimate conclusion, which Pierre has probably never even read, was that there were problems with his story.

Those problems were not, of course, the ridiculous points that Pierre made at the time and has repeated in this thread. He thinks that Lewis said he saw "a woman" whereas the majority of the newspaper reports referred to "the woman", namely the deceased woman. His second point that Lewis should have known that Kelly lived in "a room" rather than "a house" is an awful point, and was discredited a long time ago, but it's a measure of the intractable nature of Pierre's mind that he still clings on to it.

[Henry Flower]

Wrong. You treat Prater as a statistical institution. Prater Statistics[/B]. She, Prater, the poor destitute in Spitalfields, had no possibility to give ANY reliable statement about HOW common that particular type of scream was. Was it heard in 10 percent of all nights in Spitalfields? Was it heard in 50 percent of all nights in Dorset Street? How often and where - and what time? - was such a scream, "Oh, Murder!", heard? Prater had no possibility to know this. Pierre

Pierre, she had no possibility to give a reliable statement on this? That's garbage. Because she hadn't kept a detailed statistical diary of the exact times and dates when such cries were heard, and by how many other residents, you think you can state she had NO POSSIBILITY of reliably stating that it was a fairly common thing to hear? Rubbish. By those idiotic standards we are entitled to dismiss half the testimony given at any inquest. She was speaking for herself, from her own experience, she has no need to back up her testimony with a statistical analysis of 50 other residents. Do you apply that same standard to ALL witnesses at the inquests? No, you don't. Only when it suits you.

She lived in Spitalfields. In the autumn of 1888. You did not. She stated it was not uncommon to hear such cries. You can call her a liar (if you have evidence to back it up with) but what you can't do is simply dismiss her claim because she is an individual human with ears, rather than a statistical analysis.

You have a habit of cherry-picking when to apply your self-lauded rigorous statistical/analytical standards.

[Wickerman]

There are so many problems with that article. Analyse it and you will see that.

Regards, Pierre

Too cryptic Pierre, if you see a problem then you explain what you see.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;385797]

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

David 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.

The hierarchy of the sources demands that we take into consideration that the statements of professionals from the inquest are more important. If the sources where the professionals speak have tendencies and other sources do not, it is the other way around. Does the Bond source have a tendency considering the statements about TOD? NO.

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.

Wrong. You treat Prater as a statistical institution. Prater Statistics. She, Prater, the poor destitute in Spitalfields, had no possibility to give ANY reliable statement about HOW common that particular type of scream was. Was it heard in 10 percent of all nights in Spitalfields? Was it heard in 50 percent of all nights in Dorset Street? How often and where - and what time? - was such a scream, "Oh, Murder!", heard? Prater had no possibility to know this.

Pierre

[Pierre]

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

Columbo

Good idea, Columbo!

The Lewis-sources, which David likes to refer to, are not reliable. I have analysed the newspaper articles and almost all of them give that Lewis said he saw "a woman" coming out of "a house".

I have not analysed the sources for the alleged statements about Kelly being at the pub. Perhaps I could do that when I have the time.

Regards, Pierre

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I used to be a staunch supporter of Maxwell seeing Mary Kelly..but now I am in two camps.
A] Mrs Maxwell was lying to give someone an alibi, they had no night one..
B] She actually saw Lizzie Albrook,a young lady living in the court, that worked in a Dorset street lodging house.
She is unlikely to have seen Mary Jane Kelly.
Regards Richard.

[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).

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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!

[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

[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