Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

So much storytelling for nothing.

If I knew what that meant I'd respond to it but it seems to be a dumb comment made purely for the sake of saying something negative about one of my posts.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

This discussion actually led to something!

I think I know now how I can find out if we have any reason to think that Kelly was alive at 8.30 in the morning.

I will try this hypothesis (it is just an hypothesis) as soon as I can.

Thanks for a good discussion, David. You are contributing to the case.

Thank you for not being in any way patronising in your response Pierre.

And I'm glad that you feel that my repetition of a point I have made numerous times on this forum has assisted you in some vague way.

I'm bound to point out, however, that we clearly do have some reason to think that Kelly was alive at 8.30 in the morning due to the evidence of Mrs Maxwell but the issue at hand is whether we accept that evidence or not.

Nevertheless, I look forward to reading the results of your contemplation and, indeed, to finding out if there will be any new "tendencies" for us to consider.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
As I previously have mentioned, I am convince Mrs Maxwell either had a reason for telling a deliberate lie. or she mistook Kelly for Lizzie Albrook, who worked in a Dorset street lodging house, and lived in the court.
Maxwell said at the inquest..''I have seen her about in the lodging house.'', which could give support for that assumption.
The letter sent to the police from 14, Dorset street a week earlier [ Mrs Maxwell's home address], albeit to the Norfolk police may have some significance in her statement.
Regards Richard.

[David Orsam]

or she mistook Kelly for Lizzie Albrook

How then do you explain her saying she knew the deceased as Mary Jane?

And how do you explain her evidence that she said "why Mary what brings you up so early" and she replied "I do feel so bad!".

[richardnunweek]

Hi David,
That is true, if you accept that she was not mistaken, but on my second point of telling lies for a possible motive not so.
We have three alternatives,
a] Maxwell was being truthful. and Kelly therefore was killed after 9.am.?
b] She saw Lizzie, and believed her name to have been Mary?
c Maxwell lied to protect someone, and gave someone a night alibi.by suggesting the victim was alive in daylight?
Regards Richard.[ One of those is right]

[David Orsam]

Hi David,
That is true, if you accept that she was not mistaken, but on my second point of telling lies for a possible motive not so.
We have three alternatives,
a] Maxwell was being truthful. and Kelly therefore was killed after 9.am.?
b] She saw Lizzie, and believed her name to have been Mary?
c Maxwell lied to protect someone, and gave someone a night alibi.by suggesting the victim was alive in daylight?
Regards Richard.[ One of those is right]

I can't help feeling we can rule out (b) bearing in mind that she said she called the woman Mary and the woman answered to that name.

As for (c) we can say the same about every single witness. They might have been lying. But why Mrs Maxwell more than anyone else?

[Abby Normal]

I can't help feeling we can rule out (b) bearing in mind that she said she called the woman Mary and the woman answered to that name.

As for (c) we can say the same about every single witness. They might have been lying. But why Mrs Maxwell more than anyone else?

Hi David and Rich
as ive mentioned before, I'm intrigued by the possibility of (b). especially since Maxwell said she had seen her about the lodging house and lizzie worked there.

David (or Richard)
would you be interested in using your superior research skills to check this possibility out? It might just help clear up the confusion.

[David Orsam]

Hi David and Rich
as ive mentioned before, I'm intrigued by the possibility of (b). especially since Maxwell said she had seen her about the lodging house and lizzie worked there.

David (or Richard)
would you be interested in using your superior research skills to check this possibility out?

Do you mean superior psychic skills?

[Abby Normal]

Do you mean superior psychic skills?

no comprende

[Pierre]

How then do you explain her saying she knew the deceased as Mary Jane?

And how do you explain her evidence that she said "why Mary what brings you up so early" and she replied "I do feel so bad!".

Interestingly, according a set of newspapers from 12 November, Lizzie Albrook was visiting Kelly on the night before the murder, at about eight o´clock. Joe Barnett was there and he was still there when Albrook left.

Wasn´t Maria Harvey also visiting Kelly that night and before Joe Barnett arrived?

Kelly seems to have had a lot of visitors.

Regards, Pierre

[Wickerman]

It goes back to my point that it could potentially have brought the medical profession, and indeed the inquest itself, into disrepute by having a respectable witness testify that she saw Kelly alive at 8:00am followed by a doctor giving his opinion that Kelly was dead at 2:00am. And I would go further by saying that, regardless of what Dr Phillips might have written in his report, I very much doubt he would have wanted to express such an opinion in open court in view of Maxwell's evidence. I'm not saying that the doctor and the Coroner both necessarily thought Maxwell was correct but it would have been a huge risk to take. And if Maxwell was wrong but Prater/Lewis heard Kelly screaming as she was being murdered then it was still a problem (if Phillips agreed with Bond) because the scream was some two or three after Bond's estimated time of death.

Thankyou for that David.
I'm suspicious though that Macdonald may have foreseen this contention because, after all, he is the one who selected the witnesses. He intentionally selected Cox, perhaps because of her Blotchy character; and Lewis, maybe due to her Loiterer; and Maxwell, who's evidence placed the murder after 9:00 am. So he knew in advance that there was a high degree of contention to overcome in order to establish a time of death, or even identify the murderer.

As for the medical evidence, with Macdonald being a surgeon himself and the fact he joined the other surgeons at Millers Court, I feel sure he knew considerably more about the medical evidence than the average Coroner would.

We do read in the inquest coverage that he intended to preside over a second sitting at this inquest where Dr. Phillips could present his evidence.
So it would appear this scenario that you envisage above, was about to unfold, and would have if Macdonald had not changed his mind.
If that is the case, then Macdonald seemed quite prepared to let the chips fall where they may.

Here's a question for you David.
Given that the Coroner (or his office) is the one who reads and then selects the best witnesses to comply with the intent of the inquest, would this advance knowledge extend to the autopsy report?
It's my understanding that the surgeon/physician who is to conduct an autopsy does so under the direction of the Coroner. Does this imply the autopsy report is the property of the Coroner's Office, and as such would be delivered to his office on completion?

In this case that would mean the Coroner also reads the autopsy report prior to the inquest.

[David Orsam]

no comprende

I'm suggesting that the only way to answer your question is to speak to people who are now dead.

Or do you have some other suggestions?

[David Orsam]

Thankyou for that David.
I'm suspicious though that Macdonald may have foreseen this contention because, after all, he is the one who selected the witnesses. He intentionally selected Cox, perhaps because of her Blotchy character; and Lewis, maybe due to her Loiterer; and Maxwell, who's evidence placed the murder after 9:00 am. So he knew in advance that there was a high degree of contention to overcome in order to establish a time of death, or even identify the murderer.

As for the medical evidence, with Macdonald being a surgeon himself and the fact he joined the other surgeons at Millers Court, I feel sure he knew considerably more about the medical evidence than the average Coroner would.

We do read in the inquest coverage that he intended to preside over a second sitting at this inquest where Dr. Phillips could present his evidence.
So it would appear this scenario that you envisage above, was about to unfold, and would have if Macdonald had not changed his mind.
If that is the case, then Macdonald seemed quite prepared to let the chips fall where they may.

Here's a question for you David.
Given that the Coroner (or his office) is the one who reads and then selects the best witnesses to comply with the intent of the inquest, would this advance knowledge extend to the autopsy report?
It's my understanding that the surgeon/physician who is to conduct an autopsy does so under the direction of the Coroner. Does this imply the autopsy report is the property of the Coroner's Office, and as such would be delivered to his office on completion?

In this case that would mean the Coroner also reads the autopsy report prior to the inquest.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the Coroner letting the chips fall where they may. His legal obligation was "to examine on oath touching the deaths all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts whom he thinks it expedient to examine".

Yes, I feel sure that Dr Phillips' autopsy report would have been seen by the Coroner prior to the inquest.

[Wickerman]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the Coroner letting the chips fall where they may. His legal obligation was "to examine on oath touching the deaths all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts whom he thinks it expedient to examine".

Yes, agreed, which from our point of view means he should have called Dr. Phillips to provide more medical evidence, yet he did not.

I was alluding to what you wrote in the first line:
"...that it could potentially have brought the medical profession, and indeed the inquest itself, into disrepute by having a respectable witness testify that she saw Kelly alive at 8:00am followed by a doctor giving his opinion that Kelly was dead at 2:00am."

I meant that Macdonald may have intended to hear all the testimony, both medical & civil, regardless of what the outcome would be. Dr. Phillips had already been the center of controversy over the ToD in the Chapman murder.

Yes, I feel sure that Dr Phillips' autopsy report would have been seen by the Coroner prior to the inquest.

It's a thought that I have never considered before, but becomes relevant in the Kelly case because it suggests to me Macdonald just might have made his mind up in advance of the inquest that the medical evidence was not a significant contributing factor other than proof that this was a case of murder.
A fact that hardly needed the support of medical evidence.

So, either Macdonald may not have been aware of Dr. Bond's estimated ToD, or if he was, he did not agree with it.

[Abby Normal]

I'm suggesting that the only way to answer your question is to speak to people who are now dead.

Or do you have some other suggestions?

Haha. My mom claims to have talked to my long dead father. Maybe I'll ask her.