Can't get past Maxwell

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi c.d.

I will say this only once and very quietly lest I invoke the curse of the John Richardson thread. Doctors today have no reliable method for estimating time of death and Courts today would not accept medical evidence for time of death. It follows then that the doctors of 1888 also had no reliable method to estimate time of death and their best efforts are no more than a rough guide.

I think this needs clarification.

When commentators talk of the 'unreliable nature' of the accuracy of estimating TOD, they are talking of estimating a precise TOD and the PMI involved.

As a result, you often get a window of time, but this window of time is deemed to be a useful tool in the resolution of crime, otherwise why bother.

To illustrate:

Here is an article from the Los Angeles discussing the OJ Simpson case:

Delay in Notifying Coroner Hurt Simpson Case Probe : Investigation: Efforts to pinpoint time of deaths were hampered, tough LAPD policy was violated. - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

In this article, United States forensic people state:

Indeed, Los Angeles Deputy Medical Examiner Irwin L. Golden testified at Simpson’s preliminary hearing in July that the murders were committed “somewhere between 9 (p.m.) and midnight,” and he admitted under cross-examination that the standard measurements upon which he based his decision would have been more accurate if taken sooner.

“The farther away you go from the time of death, the more inaccurate you become,” said Werner U. Spitz, former Wayne County, Mich., medical examiner and author of a widely used forensic pathology textbook.

In other words, they were not prepared to give a precise estimated TOD and instead they gave a window of time, and they believe it is possible to give an accurate estimated window of time but more so with a very short PMI.

On the John Richardson thread, the notion that all TOD estimates are unreliable and should be ignored was put forward. Quite clearly, this is false.

That said, I have no desire to go 'round in circles with anyone, and so in the event you or anyone else thinks medical people being called in to estimate a TOD is a waste of time because it is unreliable by nature, or the forensic type people in the above article are wrong when they tell you: the farther away you go from the time of death, the more inaccurate you become; then you're entitled to your opinion. By extension, they are telling you it is possible to give an accurate window of time and the shorter the PMI the more accurate it is likely to be.

In terms of how this relates to Mary, the most experienced doctor of them all, Dr Phillips, was reluctant to nail down a time, and gave between 2am and 8am. That is a pretty wide timeframe and is an acknowledgement that in Mary's case it was difficult to estimate the TOD, in part due to the passage of time.

[Varqm]

This is what I think transpired. MJK was letting prostitute friends use her room. This is why Barnett left her. Shortly after 3am she vacated the premises to allow an unknown woman friend to use the room. That woman brought home JtR and suffered the consequences. MJK returns shortly before 8am and discovers the body. She goes into Dorset street and vomits from what she has just seen, and encounters Maxwell. Still in a daze she retreats to familiar ground in the pub, perhaps confiding in friends to seek advice. She returns to the room and dresses in her dead friends clothes, leaving her own clothes carefully folded. She then disappears back into the mists of obscurity from whence she came.

Maxwell was rock solid and correct, and corroborated by Lewis and others. There is absolutely no reason to doubt her testimony. MJK emptied her stomach but the stomach that contained the fish and chips was in the body of the unknown friend lying dead in No13. The cries of "murder" and the ToD can still apply, just to a person other than MJK.

I expect a torrent of disagreement from traditionalists that will label this conspiracy theory. Among them will be those that fully endorse Richardson and Long as 100% above reproach, but will happily challenge the evidence of Maxwell. I will engage in debate with all but those who like to indulge in pejoratives regarding any different theory.

Cheers, George

Maxwell had no corroboration.
Maurice Lewis said he had known MJK for 5 years.Barnett,in the inquest, said MJK came to London 4 years ago.What Lewis was in Cardiff?This should be enough to dismiss him.Lewis said MJK was dark,short stout,MJK was dark?Lewis said he saw MJK drinking that morning in Ringers,where were the people in Ringers who saw MJK ?
Lewis was .mistaken or wanted the 15
min fame so to speak.There were lots of them.

[Aethelwulf]

This is what I think transpired. MJK was letting prostitute friends use her room. This is why Barnett left her. Shortly after 3am she vacated the premises to allow an unknown woman friend to use the room. That woman brought home JtR and suffered the consequences. MJK returns shortly before 8am and discovers the body. She goes into Dorset street and vomits from what she has just seen, and encounters Maxwell. Still in a daze she retreats to familiar ground in the pub, perhaps confiding in friends to seek advice. She returns to the room and dresses in her dead friends clothes, leaving her own clothes carefully folded. She then disappears back into the mists of obscurity from whence she came.

Maxwell was rock solid and correct, and corroborated by Lewis and others. There is absolutely no reason to doubt her testimony. MJK emptied her stomach but the stomach that contained the fish and chips was in the body of the unknown friend lying dead in No13. The cries of "murder" and the ToD can still apply, just to a person other than MJK.

I expect a torrent of disagreement from traditionalists that will label this conspiracy theory. Among them will be those that fully endorse Richardson and Long as 100% above reproach, but will happily challenge the evidence of Maxwell. I will engage in debate with all but those who like to indulge in pejoratives regarding any different theory.

Cheers, George

just checked and no, it isn't 1st April

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the John Richardson thread, the notion that all TOD estimates are unreliable and should be ignored was put forward. Quite clearly, this is false.
.

This wasn't what was said. It was stated that when you have a Doctor's TOD estimation, about which we can say no more than - he might have been right or he might have been wrong, then that estimate is of no use to anyone. It was being claimed on the Richardson thread that the minimum estimation should be treated as set-in-stone and that Phillips couldn't have been in error. That was what was quite clearly false.

[Aethelwulf]

This wasn't what was said. It was stated that when you have a Doctor's TOD estimation, about which we can say no more than - he might have been right or he might have been wrong, then that estimate is of no use to anyone. It was being claimed on the Richardson thread that the minimum estimation should be treated as set-in-stone and that Phillips couldn't have been in error. That was what was quite clearly false.

Yes agree, that is exactly how DrP's estimate was being framed.

[Fleetwood Mac]

This is what I think transpired. MJK was letting prostitute friends use her room. This is why Barnett left her. Shortly after 3am she vacated the premises to allow an unknown woman friend to use the room. That woman brought home JtR and suffered the consequences. MJK returns shortly before 8am and discovers the body. She goes into Dorset street and vomits from what she has just seen, and encounters Maxwell. Still in a daze she retreats to familiar ground in the pub, perhaps confiding in friends to seek advice. She returns to the room and dresses in her dead friends clothes, leaving her own clothes carefully folded. She then disappears back into the mists of obscurity from whence she came.

Maxwell was rock solid and correct, and corroborated by Lewis and others. There is absolutely no reason to doubt her testimony. MJK emptied her stomach but the stomach that contained the fish and chips was in the body of the unknown friend lying dead in No13. The cries of "murder" and the ToD can still apply, just to a person other than MJK.

I expect a torrent of disagreement from traditionalists that will label this conspiracy theory. Among them will be those that fully endorse Richardson and Long as 100% above reproach, but will happily challenge the evidence of Maxwell. I will engage in debate with all but those who like to indulge in pejoratives regarding any different theory.

Cheers, George

I can think of one area for doubt, George: Joe Barnett identified Mary, albeit by her eyes and ears, but still, an identification.

It's a bit of an obstacle and I can't think of a way 'round it.

[etenguy]

I think this needs clarification.

When commentators talk of the 'unreliable nature' of the accuracy of estimating TOD, they are talking of estimating a precise TOD and the PMI involved.

As a result, you often get a window of time, but this window of time is deemed to be a useful tool in the resolution of crime, otherwise why bother.

To illustrate:

Here is an article from the Los Angeles discussing the OJ Simpson case:

Delay in Notifying Coroner Hurt Simpson Case Probe : Investigation: Efforts to pinpoint time of deaths were hampered, tough LAPD policy was violated. - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

In this article, United States forensic people state:

Indeed, Los Angeles Deputy Medical Examiner Irwin L. Golden testified at Simpson’s preliminary hearing in July that the murders were committed “somewhere between 9 (p.m.) and midnight,” and he admitted under cross-examination that the standard measurements upon which he based his decision would have been more accurate if taken sooner.

“The farther away you go from the time of death, the more inaccurate you become,” said Werner U. Spitz, former Wayne County, Mich., medical examiner and author of a widely used forensic pathology textbook.

In other words, they were not prepared to give a precise estimated TOD and instead they gave a window of time, and they believe it is possible to give an accurate estimated window of time but more so with a very short PMI.

On the John Richardson thread, the notion that all TOD estimates are unreliable and should be ignored was put forward. Quite clearly, this is false.

That said, I have no desire to go 'round in circles with anyone, and so in the event you or anyone else thinks medical people being called in to estimate a TOD is a waste of time because it is unreliable by nature, or the forensic type people in the above article are wrong when they tell you: the farther away you go from the time of death, the more inaccurate you become; then you're entitled to your opinion. By extension, they are telling you it is possible to give an accurate window of time and the shorter the PMI the more accurate it is likely to be.

In terms of how this relates to Mary, the most experienced doctor of them all, Dr Phillips, was reluctant to nail down a time, and gave between 2am and 8am. That is a pretty wide timeframe and is an acknowledgement that in Mary's case it was difficult to estimate the TOD, in part due to the passage of time.

Hi FM

I find little to disagree with in your post regarding t.o.d estimates and the specific difficulty in the particular instance of Mary. I think you have much better articulated what I meant by 'rough guide'.

[etenguy]

I can think of one area for doubt, George: Joe Barnett identified Mary, albeit by her eyes and ears, but still, an identification.

It's a bit of an obstacle and I can't think of a way 'round it.

Hi FM

When the issue of MJK identification has arisen in the past, identification by ears has been considered not especially reliable. Posters have suggested, not unreasonably, that Barnett identified MJK based on eyes and hair (and the ears was a misheard version of hair). That does seem to make some sense unless MJK had some form of distinctive ears.

I also wonder about the eyes - by the time Barnett came to identify the body, the eyes would likely have become opaque.

Altogether, I think relying on one person's identification, and based on such unusual criteria, unfortunate. I think it would not be wrong to challenge whether Barnett could make the identification he did on that basis.

The scenario posited by George is not one I subscribe to, but I am not sure the identification of MJK is the argument that undermines it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM

I find little to disagree with in your post regarding t.o.d estimates and the specific difficulty in the particular instance of Mary. I think you have much better articulated what I meant by 'rough guide'.

The important thing is to keep your thread on track, i.e. Mary and Caroline Maxwell.

In the context of your thread, Dr Phillips gave a very wide timeframe in terms of estimated TOD.

I do not agree with your conclusion, i.e. Maxwell saw Mary that morning.

But, given the passage of time in terms of PMI, the state of Mary's body, the wide timeframe of an estimated TOD; I wouldn't discount Maxwell's sighting on the basis of the estimated TOD. I think there's room for manoeuvre with this one.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM

When the issue of MJK identification has arisen in the past, identification by ears has been considered not especially reliable. Posters have suggested, not unreasonably, that Barnett identified MJK based on eyes and hair (and the ears was a misheard version of hair). That does seem to make some sense unless MJK had some form of distinctive ears.

I also wonder about the eyes - by the time Barnett came to identify the body, the eyes would likely have become opaque.

Altogether, I think relying on one person's identification, and based on such unusual criteria, unfortunate. I think it would not be wrong to challenge whether Barnett could make the identification he did on that basis.

The scenario posited by George is not one I subscribe to, but I am not sure the identification of MJK is the argument that undermines it.

Hi Eten,

Aye, I've never been in that position and so it's difficult to know.

My assumption is that eyes, ears and hair would have been enough given the amount of time Joe spent with Mary. That's what I think, but I suppose you never know until you've been placed in that position.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

Aye, I've never been in that position and so it's difficult to know.

My assumption is that eyes, ears and hair would have been enough given the amount of time Joe spent with Mary. That's what I think, but I suppose you never know until you've been placed in that position.

Hi FM

Thankfully I have never been in this position either.

I am more convinced that MJK's hair was distinctive, by colour as well as style, but the eyes less so given they would have become opaque. Nevertheless, there may have been sufficient information that Barnett took in to make an identification. I think the most I could state with confidence is that the mutilations made identification significantly more difficult and in those circumstances Barnett might have made a mistake.

[etenguy]

I do not agree with your conclusion, i.e. Maxwell saw Mary that morning.

But, given the passage of time in terms of PMI, the state of Mary's body, the wide timeframe of an estimated TOD; I wouldn't discount Maxwell's sighting on the basis of the estimated TOD. I think there's room for manoeuvre with this one.

Hi FM

Thank you.

To be clear, I reach the 'Maxwell saw Mary' conclusion by elimination of other possibilities - not as a positive conclusion. The one other possibility remaining after elimination is that Maxwell lied.

The basis of the start of the thread was a position of 'I cannot possibly see how Maxwell could have been mistaken about the day/time or person she spoke to.' And exploring from there.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

This is what I think transpired. MJK was letting prostitute friends use her room. This is why Barnett left her. Shortly after 3am she vacated the premises to allow an unknown woman friend to use the room. That woman brought home JtR and suffered the consequences. MJK returns shortly before 8am and discovers the body. She goes into Dorset street and vomits from what she has just seen, and encounters Maxwell. Still in a daze she retreats to familiar ground in the pub, perhaps confiding in friends to seek advice. She returns to the room and dresses in her dead friends clothes, leaving her own clothes carefully folded. She then disappears back into the mists of obscurity from whence she came.

Maxwell was rock solid and correct, and corroborated by Lewis and others. There is absolutely no reason to doubt her testimony. MJK emptied her stomach but the stomach that contained the fish and chips was in the body of the unknown friend lying dead in No13. The cries of "murder" and the ToD can still apply, just to a person other than MJK.

I expect a torrent of disagreement from traditionalists that will label this conspiracy theory. Among them will be those that fully endorse Richardson and Long as 100% above reproach, but will happily challenge the evidence of Maxwell. I will engage in debate with all but those who like to indulge in pejoratives regarding any different theory.

Cheers, George

HI George,

It makes a decent plot for a story at any rate. I wouldn't label it a conspiracy theory, there's not a whole lot of conspiring going on. It's just making the most of the gaping voids in the case and creatively filling them, which is absolutely fine, as long as that's all it is. Otherwise, you get into the realm of posters past, presenting fantasy as fact and using the 'you can't prove otherwise' defence. I hold you to a higher standard.

[Abby Normal]

hey eten
back to your OP. im having a hard time getting past Maxwell too. in the past i had just written her off as a time wasting busy body who only confuses things. but Lord Orsam made a convincing argument a couple of years ago that theres really nothing wrong with or contradicts her testimony. so i gave her a little more credence, but thought more than likely maxwell had the wrong kelly.

but more and more, her describing marys clothes accurately is making me think twice. how could she have the wrong mary if shes got the clothes right?

my world is turned upside down, need to contemplate more lol.

[Wickerman]

Hi FM

When the issue of MJK identification has arisen in the past, identification by ears has been considered not especially reliable. Posters have suggested, not unreasonably, that Barnett identified MJK based on eyes and hair (and the ears was a misheard version of hair). That does seem to make some sense unless MJK had some form of distinctive ears.

I also wonder about the eyes - by the time Barnett came to identify the body, the eyes would likely have become opaque.

Altogether, I think relying on one person's identification, and based on such unusual criteria, unfortunate. I think it would not be wrong to challenge whether Barnett could make the identification he did on that basis.

The scenario posited by George is not one I subscribe to, but I am not sure the identification of MJK is the argument that undermines it.

I think it was Dr Bond who reported her ears were cut off. Hebbert certainly did in his later review of the case - "eyelids, eyebrows, ears, nose, lips....had been cut off".
She was identified by her 'hair', not ear. Her hair was her most noticeable feature. It's a pronunciation thing, and likely an issue of accent.