Let there be light!

[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.

[David Orsam]

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

How so?

[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 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]

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]

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]

Inquest testimony, Caroline Maxwell..."I believe she was an unfortunate. On two occasions I spoke to her." That's not representative of a casual acquaintance?

I know how many times Mrs Maxwell said she spoke to Kelly but there is no evidence that their conversations consisted of "extremely casual hellos", which is the comment of yours that I was challenging.

[Wickerman]

All that quote suggests Jon is that Maxwells claim that she went to the milkshop was apparently corroborated by someone at the milkshop. Not that Caroline knew Mary, not that Caroline saw that same woolen cross found in Marys room on that same morning, nor that Caroline saw Mary that morning.

Yes Michael, I am well aware of that, however generally when some aspect of a story finds corroboration the concession is given that the whole story is true.
We are not in a position to prove everything Maxwell said, but the very fact she was questioned about her sighting on the same day the sighting took place, but a few hours later, speaks very forcefully in favor of it being on the same day.

As to whether Maxwell knew Kelly, given their proximity and that Kelly was somewhat of a local celebrity in a small way, it is very likely she knew her. That said, I have always adopted the opinion that Maxwell did mistake another woman for Kelly that morning.

Likewise I think the reporter who wrote Lewis's story about seeing Kelly go out for some milk that morning misunderstood what Lewis said. He was talking about seeing Maxwell, not seeing Kelly - in my opinion. An honest mistake by the reporter.

[Columbo]

It "won't work" only if you ignore what I posted about the likelihood of Mrs Maxwell confusing the day. Which is exactly what you have done.

It is of course true that no-one else came forward to say that they saw Mrs Maxwell speak to Kelly on the Friday morning but that does not change the fact that it was the sworn evidence of Mrs Maxwell at the inquest that she did speak to her and that this evidence is not contradicted by any other evidence presented at the inquest (or any other evidence that we know of).

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.

As pointed out (more eloquently then I did) by others, the medical evidence contradicts her testimony. It's an interesting theory you propose and I'm not saying it wasn't possible, but it's extremely unlikely based on the information you provided in support of it.

Columbo

[Michael W Richards]

Have you forgotten this Michael?

"When asked by the police how she could fix the time of the morning, Mrs. Maxwell replied, "Because I went to the milkshop for some milk, and I had not before been there for a long time, and that she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time". On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct, and the cross-over was also found in Kelly's room."
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881112.html

All that quote suggests Jon is that Maxwells claim that she went to the milkshop was apparently corroborated by someone at the milkshop. Not that Caroline knew Mary, not that Caroline saw that same woolen cross found in Marys room on that same morning, nor that Caroline saw Mary that morning.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Columbo;385736]

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.

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.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Have you forgotten this Michael?

"When asked by the police how she could fix the time of the morning, Mrs. Maxwell replied, "Because I went to the milkshop for some milk, and I had not before been there for a long time, and that she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time". On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct, and the cross-over was also found in Kelly's room."
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881112.html

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

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

That is what is known as a non sequitur. My statement that there was no evidence contradicting the evidence of Mrs Maxwell is entirely accurate.

What is not accurate, however, is your statement that:

"that there is no proof Maxwell knew Mary other than extremely casual hellos."

It's a misrepresentation of the evidence at the inquest. Mrs Maxwell never said anything about "extremely casual hellos". It's come from your imagination and shows that you are not looking at the evidence in an unbiased way.

Equally inaccurate is your reference to:

"the fact that she was warned her evidence "differed" from all other evidence as pointed out by the coroner".

As I have already mentioned, the coroner did not say that her evidence differed from ALL other evidence. You are imagining it. Furthermore, your reliance on this statement is misguided bearing in mind that the coroner must have had the medical evidence in mind when he made this statement but the doctors were not able to accurately estimate a time of death. Had the coroner known this he might well not have issued his "warning".

Then you refer to "the fact that Rigor was present at 1:30". This does not, however, mean that Kelly could not have been murdered between 9 and 10.30am.

Consequently, your suggestion that "anyone taking a prudent approach to investigating this crime would not factor her into the equation" is quite wrong and the very reverse is true. A prudent approach to the investigation must factor her evidence into the equation.

Inquest testimony, Caroline Maxwell..."I believe she was an unfortunate. On two occasions I spoke to her." That's not representative of a casual acquaintance? 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.

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.

[David Orsam]

Thanks Wickerman, this is very interesting. Orsam should like it.

I'm perfectly aware of it but I'm confining my responses to the evidence presented at the inquest, which is why I haven't bothered to mention the newspaper reports of other people who said they saw MJK alive that morning.

[David Orsam]

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.

If her statement was given to the police on the very day she said she spoke to Kelly, i.e. within hours of the conversation, what realistic chance is there of her having confused the day?