Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

I was more curious, since Prater didn't say she went outside to see if anyone was getting killed, if anyone else heard the same cry and went looking for it? I haven't seen any reports on that. If there is can someone point me to them?

Sarah Lewis, staying at 2 Millers Court, also heard a female voice shouting 'Murder' (although she said she heard a 'loud' shout whereas Prater only heard a "faint voice"). But she said she took no notice of it. No-one else heard it, so no-one investigated it. Mary Ann Cox at 5 Millers Court, who did not go to sleep all night, said she "should have heard" such a cry, had there been one, but she heard "nothing".

[Henry Flower]

David, the fact that Sarah Lewis also heard a shout of "murder" and, in her own words, "took no notice of it" - does that suggest to you that such shouts were a highly alarming and rare occurrence at night in Spitalfields, or that they were, shall we say, not uncommon? Maybe even... frequent?

She doesn't state that she was alarmed, that it curdled her blood and she froze with fear; she states that she "took no notice of it". At the height of a local murder spree, she took no notice of it.

So that's two people who hear the shout (disregarding for a moment the witness who says she would've heard it if it happened, but did not). Two people: Prater states on the record that such cries were not uncommon, and Lewis describes a response that does not contradict, and in fact obliquely corroborates Prater's assertion: she took no notice of it.

Pierre wants fifty contemporary local opinions before he'll accept Prater's honesty, but of the two people who heard the scream both responded to it in a dismissive, nonchalant manner. It's not fifty people, but it's 100% of those who heard the shout.

[MsWeatherwax]

There is something that has been mentioned and that's the food Mary Kelly ate. Anyone have thoughts on that? After some quick googling it appears an average of 6-8 hours is required for basic digestion and it takes a minium of 30+ hours to become waste.

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.

[Fisherman]

David, the fact that Sarah Lewis also heard a shout of "murder" and, in her own words, "took no notice of it" - does that suggest to you that such shouts were a highly alarming and rare occurrence at night in Spitalfields, or that they were, shall we say, not uncommon? Maybe even... frequent?

She doesn't state that she was alarmed, that it curdled her blood and she froze with fear; she states that she "took no notice of it". At the height of a local murder spree, she took no notice of it.

So that's two people who hear the shout (disregarding for a moment the witness who says she would've heard it if it happened, but did not). Two people: Prater states on the record that such cries were not uncommon, and Lewis describes a response that does not contradict, and in fact obliquely corroborates Prater's assertion: she took no notice of it.

Pierre wants fifty contemporary local opinions before he'll accept Prater's honesty, but of the two people who heard the scream both responded to it in a dismissive, nonchalant manner. It's not fifty people, but it's 100% of those who heard the shout.

In this context, it may be added that Prater and Lewis were not the only ones who spoke of somebody crying out "Murder!". There is an article somewhere - although I am not certain where - stating that there were a handful (or even more) Millers Court witnesses who spoke of such an outcry, but as I remember it, the police decided that many of these witnesses came forward out of a wish for some little limelight.
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. If it was just a fanciful tall tale on account of either witness of the Millers Court dwellers, then it could have spread like a forest fire before the police were able to take down the testimonies, the way I understand things.
Cynical, maybe, but there you are.

[Henry Flower]

Fisherman, would it be too cheeky to propose that the police dismissed those other claims of hearing a cry of "murder" because the purported witnesses claimed to have been shaken and terrified by what they heard, whereas the police knew that such cries were commonplace in the neighbourhood, and so any local who really heard such a thing - and was testifying honestly - would say that they had taken no notice of a not uncommon phenomenon?

Purely hypothetical, and reliant on circular reasoning, like so much else on this thread

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, would it be too cheeky to propose that the police dismissed those other claims of hearing a cry of "murder" because the purported witnesses claimed to have been shaken and terrified by what they heard, whereas the police knew that such cries were commonplace in the neighbourhood, and so any local who really heard such a thing - and was testifying honestly - would say that they had taken no notice of a not uncommon phenomenon?

Purely hypothetical, and reliant on circular reasoning, like so much else on this thread

Well, it would certainly be cheeky, I think we may agree on that.

But too cheeky? Nah.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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?

[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

[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.

[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 didn´t.

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 didn´t.

Regards, Pierre

[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

[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.