Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Caroline Maxwell Alibi ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Thankyou Debs.

    Have you happened to see any papers on the topic (like you mention above) explaining how they understood this effect to work in 1888?
    I don't see anything at present.
    Jon, this is the chapter on Rigor from Tidy's 1882 text book that I mentioned. It describes a chemical reaction involved in the onset of Rigor and references Kuhne's discovery of Myosin, but as I said earlier, I am not sure if they have it totally correct or not because I do not know what the chemical process is myself. I do notice though that the opening line of one paragraph describing the process involved says: " Furthermore, it is independent of temperature.."

    https://archive.org/stream/legalmedi...signs+of+death

    Meymott tidy is an interesting character and was the City of London public health public analyst before Sedgewick Saunders took over and also worked at the London Hospital. He died quite young in 1892 so his work is all contemporary to the Whitechapel cases. He has a particularly interesting chapter about the treatment of crime scenes and suggests that sketches of crime scenes should be taken and be detailed and labelled with anything that might have a bearing on the crime, and that a description of a victim's clothing should be carefully described, including any weapon marks on them. I have often mentioned in the past that I wondered if Tidy's ideas had any influence on the way the forensic detail in Catherine Eddowes' murder was dealt with in the City.

    https://archive.org/stream/legalmedi...p/search/crime
    Last edited by Debra A; 06-17-2018, 12:07 AM.
    ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

    I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Debra A View Post

      Meymott tidy is an interesting character and was the City of London public health public analyst before Sedgewick Saunders took over and also worked at the London Hospital. He died quite young in 1892 so his work is all contemporary to the Whitechapel cases. He has a particularly interesting chapter about the treatment of crime scenes and suggests that sketches of crime scenes should be taken and be detailed and labelled with anything that might have a bearing on the crime, and that a description of a victim's clothing should be carefully described, including any weapon marks on them. I have often mentioned in the past that I wondered if Tidy's ideas had any influence on the way the forensic detail in Catherine Eddowes' murder was dealt with in the City.
      Hi Debs

      I think you could be right on this issue. Eddowes clothing was described and documented with cuts at varying angles, and of varying sizes, all around the waist and abdominal area, with connecting blood stains, which to me might indicate she was stabbed several times through the outer clothing, and the knife drawn down or across. However it seems there are several here who dont subscribe to that view, but have failed to come up with plausible alternatives for these specific cuts, and the connecting blood stains.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        Hi Debs

        I think you could be right on this issue. Eddowes clothing was described and documented with cuts at varying angles, and of varying sizes, all around the waist and abdominal area, with connecting blood stains, which to me might indicate she was stabbed several times through the outer clothing, and the knife drawn down or across. However it seems there are several here who dont subscribe to that view, but have failed to come up with plausible alternatives for these specific cuts, and the connecting blood stains.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Yes, that's what made me think he might have had an influence somehow, Trevor. Also he describes making sketches of the original position a body was found in and noting the position of surrounding objects, furniture etc. Outdoors this would probably translate to noting landmarks? Similar to the sketches done of Eddowes.
        ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

        I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

        Comment


        • #34
          [QUOTE=packers stem;450471]This is without a doubt the lamest excuse for dismissing the most reliable of witnesses to fit into a theory .

          Why is she the most reliable of witnesses? Her story isn't corroborated by anyone. Lawende's is by the two gentlemen he was with. Fanny Mortimer's is by Leon Goldstein etc Nobody saw Maxwell and Kelly talking. I know that doesn't mean she was lying but it isn't corroborated either.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Debra A View Post
            Jon, this is the chapter on Rigor from Tidy's 1882 text book that I mentioned.
            Wonderful find Debs, much appreciated.
            This all helps to fill in what Phillips & Bond, etc., had to consider in their medical determinations which are not reflected in surviving notes.

            He has a particularly interesting chapter about the treatment of crime scenes and suggests that sketches of crime scenes should be taken and be detailed and labelled with anything that might have a bearing on the crime, and that a description of a victim's clothing should be carefully described, including any weapon marks on them. I have often mentioned in the past that I wondered if Tidy's ideas had any influence on the way the forensic detail in Catherine Eddowes' murder was dealt with in the City.

            https://archive.org/stream/legalmedi...p/search/crime
            It is an interesting fact that the City surgeon seems to have approached the Eddowes murder with more attention to detail than the surviving records of the Met. murders tend to indicate on their part.
            We may note that no-one of Foster's caliber was introduced at the various inquests in the four Met. cases.

            Many thanks Debs.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • #36
              [QUOTE=Darryl Kenyon;450509]
              Originally posted by packers stem View Post
              This is without a doubt the lamest excuse for dismissing the most reliable of witnesses to fit into a theory .

              Why is she the most reliable of witnesses? Her story isn't corroborated by anyone. Lawende's is by the two gentlemen he was with. Fanny Mortimer's is by Leon Goldstein etc Nobody saw Maxwell and Kelly talking. I know that doesn't mean she was lying but it isn't corroborated either.
              Maxwell's visit to get milk was corroborated by the shop.
              Let's start at the beginning and compare the two sightings .
              Maxwell was a neighbour , she was also well aware that Kelly came from Limerick when questioned on the day .
              Lawende did not know the couple he saw .
              Maxwell's sighting was in daylight and a conversation took place .
              Lawende's sighting was in utter darkness as we know there was no lamp at that and of the passage .... no conversation
              Lawende and friends had little reason to take note of the couple .
              Maxwell's attention would have been alerted by Mary throwing up in the street .
              Maurice Lewis press statements do supply independent corroboration that Kelly was alive and well as does the unnamed woman mentioned in the times .
              Lawende's sighting is rather worthless other than that he witnessed a couple standing in the dark .....
              could have been absolutely anybody .
              Maxwell , saw and chatted with a neighbour and despite pressure she was under , was unmoved in her testimony .There are no grounds for suggesting she lied and if abberline suspected so he should have made her identify the body .... had it been possible
              You can lead a horse to water.....

              Comment


              • #37
                Maxwell's 'Kelly' threw up in the street about 8:30?, the body had partly digested fish & potato in the stomach after 10:45.
                Who is serving a supper that early in the morning?
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  Maxwell's 'Kelly' threw up in the street about 8:30?, the body had partly digested fish & potato in the stomach after 10:45.
                  Who is serving a supper that early in the morning?
                  Quite ......
                  The Bond report described an evening meal yet Kelly was alive and well .
                  So if that's so what are your options ?
                  You can lead a horse to water.....

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    [QUOTE=packers stem;450515]
                    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                    Maxwell's visit to get milk was corroborated by the shop.
                    Let's start at the beginning and compare the two sightings .
                    Maxwell was a neighbour , she was also well aware that Kelly came from Limerick when questioned on the day .
                    Lawende did not know the couple he saw .
                    Maxwell's sighting was in daylight and a conversation took place .
                    Lawende's sighting was in utter darkness as we know there was no lamp at that and of the passage .... no conversation
                    Lawende and friends had little reason to take note of the couple .
                    Maxwell's attention would have been alerted by Mary throwing up in the street .
                    Maurice Lewis press statements do supply independent corroboration that Kelly was alive and well as does the unnamed woman mentioned in the times .
                    Lawende's sighting is rather worthless other than that he witnessed a couple standing in the dark .....
                    could have been absolutely anybody .
                    Maxwell , saw and chatted with a neighbour and despite pressure she was under , was unmoved in her testimony .There are no grounds for suggesting she lied and if abberline suspected so he should have made her identify the body .... had it been possible
                    Did i say Lawende had a good view of JTR? What I said was his evidence can be corroborated. As for going to the shop to buy some milk, I went to the paper shop around the corner this morning and saw Elvis across the road. Faz who served and knows me can corroborate I went to the shop but can he corroborate that I saw Elvis? OED Corroborate - confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      People like Kelly pretty well lived from hand to mouth. So I wouldn't think it viable to suggest she bought the food earlier the night before, and kept half of it for breakfast. But then, who eats a meal soon after throwing up?
                      Typically, food is the last thing on your mind after a good heave-up - I recall my pub-crawl days when a lad.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        [QUOTE=Darryl Kenyon;450522]
                        Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                        Did i say Lawende had a good view of JTR? What I said was his evidence can be corroborated. As for going to the shop to buy some milk, I went to the paper shop around the corner this morning and saw Elvis across the road. Faz who served and knows me can corroborate I went to the shop but can he corroborate that I saw Elvis? OED Corroborate - confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
                        Wasn't the suggested corroboration by the milk shop given in response to the suggestion Maxwell had the wrong day?
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Wickerman, you're probably right, but isn't it also true that the abject poor eat whatever is available, and don't conform to the niceties of a breakfast, lunch, and dinner menu? Cold pizza is the breakfast of champions in most trailer courts in the U.S. of A. And, anyway, didn't your lot eat kippers in the a.m. back in the day?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            A couple of observations. When Mrs Maxwell first saw Mary she was stood at the corner of Millers Court and had thrown up in the street nearby. She would have been right next to Mcarthy's shop and fifteen minutes later hadn't moved too far and was stood near the Ringers. A couple of hours later Mcarthy sends Bowyer out to collect the rent. Could he have missed Mary throwing up in the street, talking outside his shop or hanging about nearby? It's a possibility but if he did see her surely he would have just gone out, or sent someone out and asked her for the arrears. Also, neither McCarty or Bowyer said they saw Mary at that time in the morning. Was the shop open? Well, you have to say probably. Secondly, Mary would know about the arrears and would know it's collection day. Would she really go to The Ringers and spend what might have been her last money on some ale in that state? I doubt she could attract a client first thing in the morning looking possibly like death warmed up, and would she want to?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              [QUOTE=Darryl Kenyon;450522]
                              Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                              Did i say Lawende had a good view of JTR? What I said was his evidence can be corroborated. As for going to the shop to buy some milk, I went to the paper shop around the corner this morning and saw Elvis across the road. Faz who served and knows me can corroborate I went to the shop but can he corroborate that I saw Elvis? OED Corroborate - confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
                              If Elvis was proven to be your neighbour then I suggest you would be highly likely to be telling the truth....

                              Maurice Lewis ....

                              Lawende's companions confirm 'a couple' standing in Duke Street .
                              So is that it in your view witness wise ?
                              Other than Best and Gardner who corroborated each other ?
                              You can't include Mortimer really, just saw a man with a shiny bag .Goldstein saw a report and came forward ..... maybe someone else owned a bag ?
                              So Best and Gardner are the only witnesses with corroboration if that's your route ....
                              Personally , I'm not inclined to disbelieve someone purely because they didn't have company at the time
                              You can lead a horse to water.....

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                                A couple of observations. When Mrs Maxwell first saw Mary she was stood at the corner of Millers Court and had thrown up in the street nearby. She would have been right next to Mcarthy's shop and fifteen minutes later hadn't moved too far and was stood near the Ringers. A couple of hours later Mcarthy sends Bowyer out to collect the rent. Could he have missed Mary throwing up in the street, talking outside his shop or hanging about nearby? It's a possibility but if he did see her surely he would have just gone out, or sent someone out and asked her for the arrears. Also, neither McCarty or Bowyer said they saw Mary at that time in the morning. Was the shop open? Well, you have to say probably. Secondly, Mary would know about the arrears and would know it's collection day. Would she really go to The Ringers and spend what might have been her last money on some ale in that state? I doubt she could attract a client first thing in the morning looking possibly like death warmed up, and would she want to?
                                Someone 'not seeing' a person is not evidence that they weren't there .
                                Did McCarthy or Bowyer witness her comings and goings on Thursday night ?
                                That goes for her spending money the night before knowing there was rent to pay .
                                Anything stated there could just as easily apply to the day before .... the shop was open till 3am usually ...... there was a lot that McCarthy didn't spot it seems .
                                I've never suggested she would be looking for a 'client'
                                You can lead a horse to water.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X