Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

Question for Observer

Tell me Observer, what do you make of the following in the Evening Post of 9 November 1888?

"One man has informed our representative that he was in the court at eight o’clock this morning when he saw Kelly go out for the purpose of fetching some milk. Two women aver that they saw her in a public-house, drinking with a man. This was between ten and half-past, but the persons residing in the public house state that they have no recollection of her, and the point is rendered the more difficult through Kelly not being generally known."

[David Orsam]

Second Question for Observer

What do you make of Walter Dew's statement about Mrs Maxwell in his book?

"If Mrs. Maxwell had been a sensation-seeker-one of those women who live for the limelight-it would have been easy to discredit her story. She was not. She seemed a sane and sensible woman, and her reputation was excellent."

[David Orsam]

Come now, I was working on the assumption that Maxwell was being truthful.

I can't not respond to this.

If the assumption is that Maxwell was being truthful then Kelly was alive at 8:00am and we don't need to worry ourselves about the Britannia!

[Observer]

Well you said:

"Are we to believe that the single scream as heard by Lewis and Prater was the result of a common assault?"

I thought it was strange question because I haven't said anything about common assault and I focused on the issue of the evidence relating to the "single scream" about which you have said precisely nothing despite that going directly to the issue of being selective with the evidence.

I have no idea whether the cry of "oh murder" was the result of a common assault or not. The only evidence is that it was a common sound in the neighbourhood at night. You need to confront that evidence rather than run away from it as you have done.

A strange question? . If the scream did not emanate from Kelly's mouth then it's quite obvious that some other woman was in distress. Can you not see that?

[Observer]

The only thing that's incredible is that you have created your own premise that this was a common assault and then rubbished that premise.

I haven't said a word about any assault. I repeat that the evidence is that the cry of "oh murder" was a common occurrence in the neighbourhood at night.

Do you accept that this was the evidence?

See above

[Observer]

There was indeed evidence of a scream, or rather a muted cry of murder (according to Prater), but no evidence that this can be connected to the murder of Kelly.

Timing and location says otherwise.

[David Orsam]

A strange question? If the scream did not emanate from Kelly's mouth then it's quite obvious that some other woman was in distress. Can you not see that?

Wow, I've heard of people contradicting themselves but this takes the biscuit.

You said to me only a few posts ago:

"Are we to believe that the single scream as heard by Lewis and Prater was the result of a common assault?"

Now you tell me that absent Kelly's murder it couldn't possibly have been anything else!!!

Wow. That's all I can say. Wow.

[David Orsam]

See above

See above is not an answer to my question, which was:

Do you accept that a cry of murder was a common occurrence in the neighbourhood at night?

[David Orsam]

Timing and location says otherwise.

As for timing we don't know when Kelly was murdered (that's the whole point!) and as for location we have the evidence of Prater that a cry of murder was common in the neighbourhood. So was Kelly regularly being murdered then?

[Observer]

I don't know. Dr Bond said she had eaten about 3 or 4 hours before she was murdered but it's not a simple matter to calculate this, not least because different people have different rates of digestion. Perhaps it was 2 hours before her murder.

She was found at 10 45, it takes the stomach 6 hours to clear after an average meal. Partly digested food was found in her stomach. Doctor Bond estimated that she had eaten 3 or 4 hours before her death, you say perhaps it was 2 hours, lets say 3. So in effect she could have been murdered at 7:45 a.m. Well if Maxwell is correct this can't be so as she sighted her at approx 8:30 a.m. So Maxwell testifies that she saw her at approximately 8:30 a.m. lets take three hours off this and it comes to 5:30 a.m. Kelly was eating her last meal, fish and chips in all likelihood, at 5:30 a.m in the morning. So a night of drinking heavily, singing her head off until 1 o clock in the morning, and she wakes up and has a meal of fish and chips at half past five in the morning. Yeah right. You just love "evidence" any evidence of fish and chip shops being open at 5:30 in the morning?

[David Orsam]

She was found at 10 45, it takes the stomach 6 hours to clear after an average meal. Partly digested food was found in her stomach. Doctor Bond estimated that she had eaten 3 or 4 hours before her death, you say perhaps it was 2 hours, lets say 3. So in effect she could have been murdered at 7:45 a.m. Well if Maxwell is correct this can't be so as she sighted her at approx 8:30 a.m. So Maxwell testifies that she saw her at approximately 8:30 a.m. lets take three hours off this and it comes to 5:30 a.m. Kelly was eating her last meal, fish and chips in all likelihood, at 5:30 a.m in the morning. So a night of drinking heavily, singing her head off until 1 o clock in the morning, and she wakes up and has a meal of fish and chips at half past five in the morning. Yeah right. You just love "evidence" any evidence of fish and chip shops being open at 5:30 in the morning?

I love the "lets say 3" as if that is a scientific way of going about this.

But if it was 3 hours and she was murdered at 10:00am then her last meal would have been at 7:00am.

[Observer]

But that "simple" answer is based on the twin assumptions that someone drinking (or serving) in that bar would (a) have known who she was and (b) would have taken notice of her.

I have no doubts that she would have been recognised.

I've already made the point on this forum, but I don't suppose you to have read it, that in the similar case of the murder of Emily Dimmock in 1907 who went for a drink in a local pub in Camden Town (the Eagle) on the night of her murder, the police had terrible difficulty finding anyone who could confirm she was there yet she was definitely there. You can read all about it my book "The Camden Town Murder Mystery" if you like.[

If the content of your book is anywhere near the content of your posts in this forum I have no intention of reading your book. However, was she a regular "face" in the bar in question.

I've also made the point that Kelly was clearly out drinking on the Thursday night (as she was identified as being drunk by Mary Ann Cox) but where is the evidence as to where she was drinking? Answer, none was produced. Why? You tell me.

Kelly's inquest was over and done with in record time, a lack of written evidence regarding the places she drank in prior to her murder is not proof that her movements were not known.

[Observer]

Are you speaking for other people now Observer?

Are you quite sure other posters haven't become increasingly frustrated with you?

I am indeed David, Fisherman being the poster in question.

Are you speaking for other posters? I havn't regularly posted in here for some time, so I don't know where you get that from.

[David Orsam]

I am indeed David, Fisherman being the poster in question.

You're using Fisherman to support your claim that "other posters" are becoming frustrated with me?

Forgive me for failing to control my laughter.

[David Orsam]

Are you speaking for other posters? I havn't regularly posted in here for some time, so I don't know where you get that from.

No I have no idea; I was asking you and, at the same time, showing you how easy it is to make such statements.