Let there be light!

[Michael W Richards]

Just thought that a reality grounding might be prudent....there is no evidence at all....none....that Caroline Maxwell knew who Mary Kelly was, what she looked like, or where Mary was on the Friday morning. Just as there is no evidence that George Hutchison knew Mary Kelly of Millers Court.

Although they are often cited as valuable witnesses in this case, in fact the opposite is the truth unless or until someone provides at the very least a secondary corroborative source. And no, Sarah saw a Wideawake Hatted man, not someone she identified as George Hutchinson.

Not one single shred of evidence has been offered that Caroline Maxwells remarks are validated, there is no secondary source that we can be sure knew Mary at all either, therefore, it is heresay evidence only ...and hardly a foundation to launch credibility attacks at the PM physicians abilities to determine a rough cause of death....based upon numerous factors including environmental, state of rigor, and partially digested food. Which stopped being processed when Mary was killed.

[David Orsam]

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.

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.

I'm sure that Macdonald was not aware of Dr Bond's report but would only have known what was said in Dr Phillips' report which is lost to us.

The problem was that Dr Phillips could only provide an estimate and, if his estimate was the same as Bond's, it wasn't going to be very helpful to the jury for the doctor to say 1-2am in the context of the evidence that there was a scream at 3:45am and a witness who had spoken to the deceased at 8:00am!

So what I am really suggesting is that, with the express or tacit agreement of the Coroner, the time estimate (if he had one) was abandoned by Phillips or at least he did not have sufficient confidence in his estimate to be able to put it forward in open court in conflict with witness testimony.

As for the more general point about medical evidence, there is no doubt that it was not all given at the inquest. Hence from the Times of 13 November: "The CORONER said he proposed at that stage to take, briefly, the evidence of the doctor. They could not go into all the particulars at that stage...... The CORONER said it would not be necessary for the doctor to go into any further particulars then. If it was necessary they could recall him at a subsequent period."

[David Orsam]

Just thought that a reality grounding might be prudent....there is no evidence at all....none....that Caroline Maxwell knew who Mary Kelly was, what she looked like, or where Mary was on the Friday morning. Just as there is no evidence that George Hutchison knew Mary Kelly of Millers Court.

As a matter of fact you are wrong about this because Mrs Maxwell's testimony is evidence in the case. In her statement (as repeated in her oral testimony) she said:

"I have known deceased during the past 4 months, she was known as Mary Jane and that since Joe Barnett left her she has obtained her living as an unfortunate".

Barnett provided confirmation at the inquest that he had left her and that she was a prostitute.

[David Orsam]

Not one single shred of evidence has been offered that Caroline Maxwells remarks are validated, there is no secondary source that we can be sure knew Mary at all either, therefore, it is heresay evidence only ...and hardly a foundation to launch credibility attacks at the PM physicians abilities to determine a rough cause of death....based upon numerous factors including environmental, state of rigor, and partially digested food. Which stopped being processed when Mary was killed.

You are absolutely wrong, Michael, to say that Mrs Maxwell's evidence is the foundation on which credibility attacks on a PM physician's abilities to determine a rough cause of death have been launched. Those credibility attacks exist entirely independently of Mrs Maxwell. Go and read the book by Jessica Snyder Sachs about the difficulties of estimating a time of death.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It appears we are left with just two alternatives,
Mrs Maxwell saw Mary Kelly as she stated, no mistake, and she was killed around 9am.
Mrs Maxwell lied , for motives unknown.
Regards Richard.

[Abby Normal]

Hi,
It appears we are left with just two alternatives,
Mrs Maxwell saw Mary Kelly as she stated, no mistake, and she was killed around 9am.
Mrs Maxwell lied , for motives unknown.
Regards Richard.

what happened to identity mix up? you know-Lizzie etc.?

[Robert St Devil]

what happened to identity mix up? you know-Lizzie etc.?

That could have left us with a record of Mrs Maxwell recanting her story after she sees "Mary Jane Kelly" walking around Dorset St on the 12th, 13th, 14th, or... and realizes that she didn,t really see Mary Jane Kelly outside Miller,s Court the morning of the 9th.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I believe we have never got the time of Mary Kelly's death correctly.the police believed she was killed in daylight,but because of the reported cry, and the visitors the dead woman had in her room that night, and the medical opinion, it was assumed that the death was around 4.am
If Maxwell indeed saw Kelly after 8 am and gave that statement under oath some three days later, we should suggest she had ample time to realise mistaken identity.
The police believed her, they called her to attend the inquest even though her statement went against their own police doctors.
She swore under oath, despite the coroners remarks she should be careful.
She was reported to have been a level headed woman, of good character.
She was obviously convinced she saw the deceased some 4 hours after she was presumed dead.
Was she genuine,was she covering for someone.that is the question?
Regards Richard.

[Michael W Richards]

As a matter of fact you are wrong about this because Mrs Maxwell's testimony is evidence in the case. In her statement (as repeated in her oral testimony) she said:

"I have known deceased during the past 4 months, she was known as Mary Jane and that since Joe Barnett left her she has obtained her living as an unfortunate".

Barnett provided confirmation at the inquest that he had left her and that she was a prostitute.

By the time she stepped onto the stand the news was common knowledge, information about her was rife in the papers on the weekend. Proves nothing. Proves only that she reads the paper on occasion, as it would appear Georgie also did. Its odd how often you find controversial witness testimony in these cases, Mary Malcolm comes immediately to mind. Wishing for a slice of the spotlight, storytelling rights at the local pubs..something more sinister, perhaps intentionally but secretively indulged by the authorities... who knows why some people do this.

[Wickerman]

Hi,
I believe we have never got the time of Mary Kelly's death correctly.the police believed she was killed in daylight,but because of the reported cry, and the visitors the dead woman had in her room that night, and the medical opinion, it was assumed that the death was around 4.am
If Maxwell indeed saw Kelly after 8 am and gave that statement under oath some three days later, we should suggest she had ample time to realise mistaken identity.
The police believed her, they called her to attend the inquest even though her statement went against their own police doctors.
She swore under oath, despite the coroners remarks she should be careful.
She was reported to have been a level headed woman, of good character.
She was obviously convinced she saw the deceased some 4 hours after she was presumed dead.
Was she genuine,was she covering for someone.that is the question?
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard.
I would not say the police believed her, they took her statement and it becomes part of the case. Their belief, official or unofficial does not come into it. It was her statement and they accept it as true by default.

What I found strange, to me at least is, that Maxwell claimed Mary did not associate with people, keeping herself to herself. There are a range of versions of what Maxwell said in different press accounts, but I find this a little contrary to her seemingly popularity in the neighbourhood.

I'm more in favor of her being mistaken, I think the suggestion she really saw Lizzie Albrook is quite reasonable.

[Wickerman]

That could have left us with a record of Mrs Maxwell recanting her story after she sees "Mary Jane Kelly" walking around Dorset St on the 12th, 13th, 14th, or... and realizes that she didn,t really see Mary Jane Kelly outside Miller,s Court the morning of the 9th.

A number of the Millers Court tenants left following this murder, if Albrook was one of them then Maxwell may never have seen her again.

[MsWeatherwax]

You are absolutely wrong, Michael, to say that Mrs Maxwell's evidence is the foundation on which credibility attacks on a PM physician's abilities to determine a rough cause of death have been launched. Those credibility attacks exist entirely independently of Mrs Maxwell. Go and read the book by Jessica Snyder Sachs about the difficulties of estimating a time of death.

Again, have to concur with this statement.

I am not attacking the credibility of the doctors concerned - it is simply fact that through the years we have learned so much more about the difficulties in establishing a time of death.

I do not believe that we have enough medical evidence to establish a time of death for Mary Kelly. Rigor is unreliable to due to the extensive mutilation, digestion is unreliable for reasons already explained, as far as I'm aware there was no mention of livor mortis. I'm not aware that a core body temperature has ever been mentioned. All that can be said with certainty is that she died sometime in the 24 hours prior to her body being discovered. That can only be narrowed down by looking at witness statements, and unfortunately we can't really 'cherry pick' which statements we want to keep.

If I had to chuck my hat into the ring, I'd say that the 4am cry of 'murder' is key. Yes, it may have been common-place in Victorian London. However, taken with the fact that someone was actually murdered in this instance I don't think it's completely unreasonable to assume that the two events were linked.

[Wickerman]

I do not believe that we have enough medical evidence to establish a time of death for Mary Kelly. Rigor is unreliable to due to the extensive mutilation, digestion is unreliable for reasons already explained, as far as I'm aware there was no mention of livor mortis. I'm not aware that a core body temperature has ever been mentioned.

In the 19th century the physicians were aware of four methods to help in determining time of death; Rigor mortis, Algor mortis, Livor mortis and digestion. However, they also knew these methods were only a guide, and all had severe limitations.

Incidentally, when a body was mutilated to such a degree as to dissipate body heat, as in some of these cases, the body temperature was taken by inserting the thermometer into the head, as the only available intact portion.

If you compare the late 19th century methods of autopsy to today's methods, aside from advances in technology and more understanding of body science, the differences are not that great. They had all the basics pretty well covered.

[MsWeatherwax]

In the 19th century the physicians were aware of four methods to help in determining time of death; Rigor mortis, Algor mortis, Livor mortis and digestion. However, they also knew these methods were only a guide, and all had severe limitations.

Incidentally, when a body was mutilated to such a degree as to dissipate body heat, as in some of these cases, the body temperature was taken by inserting the thermometer into the head, as the only available intact portion.

If you compare the late 19th century methods of autopsy to today's methods, aside from advances in technology and more understanding of body science, the differences are not that great. They had all the basics pretty well covered.

Hi Fish.

I don't disagree - and I have gone to pains to note that I don't believe that the attending Doctors of the day have deliberately misrepresented the facts.

The truth is though, with all of our modern technology we still can't really reliably narrow down a time of death to the extent that Dr Bond did. It's just impossible to say '2am', and have that be the end of it.

We really are left with saying that the TOD was likely to be within the last 24 hours, and then using witness statements and other evidence to narrow that window down.

The problem with this, though, is determining which if any of the witness statements are reliable isn't it? I guess that's why, well over a century later, we're all still arguing about it.

As I've said, my own best guess is around the time of the cry of murder - however, I can't say that the witnesses who saw Mary alive much later are wrong because I have absolutely no evidence to back that assertion up. All I can say is that I think it's improbable and they were probably mistaken. It's certainly not impossible, though.

[Wickerman]

The truth is though, with all of our modern technology we still can't really reliably narrow down a time of death to the extent that Dr Bond did. It's just impossible to say '2am', and have that be the end of it.

Completely agree, previously I was debating Bond's conclusion after he considered digestion as a means to arrive at an estimate. My only point was that I do not believe Bond would have tried to make that case without some indication of when Kelly last ate, and that would come from the police.

I was not at all suggesting his conclusion was correct - in fact as I said to David, I'm sure the 1:00 - 2:00 was wrong.

As I've said, my own best guess is around the time of the cry of murder - however, I can't say that the witnesses who saw Mary alive much later are wrong because I have absolutely no evidence to back that assertion up. All I can say is that I think it's improbable and they were probably mistaken. It's certainly not impossible, though.

Which pretty much encompasses my own thoughts - I champion no particular "time of death", though I lean more towards 4:00 am, except to say it was not 1:00 - 2:00 am.