|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Mrs. Maxwell & MJK's vomit
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses:
Mrs. Maxwell & MJK's vomit
Author: DD
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 08:41 pm |        | | Well did I ever stir up a Hornest's nest!! I just made a simple observation.All the 'nay- sayers' are entiled to their opinions,and it is this ongoing and lively debate which fuels research. However, I have not posted before because I have felt a lot of 'bad blood' in here. Seems there is still some out there...Perhaps I was wrong in posting at all. To paraphrase Bob, just some regurgitated food for thought. |
Author: NickDanger
Sunday, 12 December 1999 - 10:10 pm | | DD,
As a relative newcomer myself, I posted a message congratulating you on picking up something that most people seem to have missed. However, many people have invested a lot of time, sweat and ego in developing particular theories and they can get quite prickly and defensive when any aspect of it is called into question. It's a normal human reaction. Please don't let it intimidate or discourage you. Keep on probing.
Best wishes,
Nick |
Author: Wolf
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 02:43 am | | Claymore.
Well, who would have thought that a board entitled Mrs. Maxwell and MJK's Vomit would be so much fun! A lot of interesting stuff here.
Caz, thanks for the Mayhew references, I couldn't find mine but knew that someone had read it recently on the boards and had hoped that they would "chip" in.
Peter, Dr. Bond's report states, In the abdominal cavity was some partly digested food of fish and potatoes & similar food was found in the remains of the stomach attached to the intestines."
Jeff, we really don't know what type of potato Kelly was eating but "chips" would mean fries.
Mike, we don't know why or even if the Ripper built a "roaring fire" but he might have built it for warmth rather than light. If indeed Mary Kelly was murdered in the morning it would explain why he didn't use the only candle in the room, he didn't need it if it was light out.
Now we come to the interesting dichotomy whereby anon accuses me of "constantly repeating my beliefs on these boards" but Christopher-George seems to be unaware of them.
C-G, the basis of my opinion that Caroline Maxwell, Maurice Lewis and the unnamed woman in The Times are telling the truth is based on my research into Forensic Pathology and the estimation of time of death. (yeah, here he goes again) This never seems to be understood or acknowledged by posters who attack my opinions. You, C-G, respond with, "then you add your naysaying and downgrading of Dr. bond's opinion." Exactly! But this is the lynchpin in my argument not just an added assumption.
Through my research I have found that Dr. Bond was way off on his pronouncements about such vital facts as the length of time it takes for rigor mortis to appear in the body, and, as I posted on this board earlier, the length of time it takes for the digestion of a fish and potato meal. As is usual, neither you nor anon nor anyone else has res[ponded to the fact that partial digestion of this meal would probably take less than an hour and that if you believe that Kelly was killed at 4:00 am., then she would have had to have eaten at around 3:30 am.. Is this more or less probable than saying she had a breakfast of fish and chips?
Based on modern forensic pathology there is a likelihood that Mary Kelly was murdered around 9:00 am.. Do we have any witnesses that can back that up? Yes, Maxwell, Lewis and the unnamed woman. Is it possible that Kelly had eaten a fish and potato meal at around 8:30am.? Of course it's possible. Your intractable position that it was impossible for her to have eaten this meal is rather strange and really undefendable. (I acknowledge the fact that you have used the word "unlikely" but you use it in your argument as "impossible".)
Your argument that if Mary Kelly was alive that morning she would have been seen by more than these three people has a corollary in the fact that when she was out and about that night why didn't more people see her then? What were her exact movements from the time that Barnett left her at 8:00 pm. and when Mary Ann Cox saw her at 11:45 pm.? She was drunk but where had she been drinking? The Britannia or The Horn of Plenty or somewhere else? Who had she been drinking with? Who was the carroty mustached man with the pail of beer? If she picked him up at a pub, why didn't anyone come foreward to name him? We believe that Mary was out turning tricks most of the night yet only Cox and Hutchinson were sure that they had seen her, only two witnesses out of possibly dozens. The denizens of Do as You Please Street weren't exactly lining up to give evidence to the police.
Anon, I had to smile at your posting, perhaps the longest you've ever attempted on these boards. It is obvious that you weren't studying the Ripper in the 60's and 70's. With your feet planted squarely in the present you try to explain what the prevailing ideas were 28 years ago without benefit of actually being there and you failed. For example, "the suggestion that Tabram was a victim has been around for ages, it dates back to 1888." True, but in 1894 Macnaghten wrote his memorandum: "Now the Whitechapel Murderer had 5 victims - & 5 victims only..." Daniel Farson discovered a version of the memorandum in 1959 and by the mid 60's, Martha Tabram was no longer considered a serious Ripper victim.
if I am constantly repeating myself it is because no one seems to be listening. You would never say that Dr. bond's estimate of the time of death in the Kelly case was ludicrous? Based on what. What research, what books and articles, who have you interviewed in order to base your support for Dr. Bond? Any research at all? If you had you might not have brought up Dr. Phillips' "climbdown" on his estimate of time of Chapman's death.
Dr. Phillips arrived at Hanbury Street at 6:30 am.. At that time, "the stifness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing." His estimate of time of death was, "...the deceased had been dead for at least two hours, and probably more..." The, "and probably more" fits in with the commencing of signs of rigor mortis so Dr. phillips was on the right track. He then goes on, "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from having lost a great quantity of blood." This statement is practically useless in determaning the time of death of Annie Chapman. In order for algor mortis(cooling of the body)to have any meaning, external and internal temperatures(anal or liver)have to be taken and then retaken an hour later in order to calculate the rate of heat loss from the body. All Phillips and Bond did were to touch the body to see how cold it was. Dr. phillips' statement is therefore meaningless while his observation on the onset of rigor mortis is all we have to go on.
If you had done your homework anon, you would have discovered that cooling of the body results in a delay of the onset of rigor therefore Dr. Phillips' estimate of two hours, probably more, becomes definitely more than two hours, somewhere between 2:30 and 3:30 am.
Wolf. |
Author: anon
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 06:17 am | | The Big Bad Wolf is back, all guns blazing. Never have I read so much misguided nonsense in one post.
Food in the stomach takes hours to digest, the onset of rigor mortis is so variable as to be too unreliable to be used for anything like an accurate estimate of the time of death.
The only witness giving evidence of allegedly seeing Kelly later than the estimated time of death was Mrs Maxwell. The other two 'witnesses' stories were merely newspaper reports (Lewis and an unnamed woman), both of whom were never again mentioned, and, more importantly, were never called to give evidence. They may be discounted as being too doubtful a source to attach any weight to.
I do understand the effects of rigor mortis and its onset Mr Wolf, I have handled many dead bodies, just how many have you handled? You read a few textbooks and suddenly think you are an expert. I repeat with all the research you have claimed to have done you have added no new facts to the case.
Your argument about Kelly being seen if she is still alive is totally specious. For the newspaper report on Lewis said that he claimed to have seen her in The Britannia at 10.00 am, and it is ridiculous to claim that he was correct for in such a place she would have been seen by others who knew her, including the Ringers who ran that pub.
As regards my study of the case I can assure you that I was doing that before you ever thought of it. I was visiting all the murder sites as early as 1968.
However, you really reveal your ignorance when you make your comments about Ripper studies in the 1960's and 70's. For, again if you had done your jomework, you should know that Robin Odell in his 1965 book Jack the Ripper In Fact and Fiction made the case for Tabram being the first Ripper victim. It was a major landmark work ranking alongside Cullen, and was highly regarded at the time, many thinking it was better than Cullen. Of course, Farson's book did not appear until 1972.
You obviously keep repeating yourself because you enjoy doing so, and think that if you ram your ideas down enough throats one or two might swallow them.
You repeat all the well-known facts (available in many books) on what Dr Phillips did and said, none of which alters the fact that he conceded that the time of death was probably later than he had at first suggested. To accept the earlier time of death (as you apparently do) requires the acceptance of John Richardson failing to notice the body as he sat next to it on the back doorstep of 29 Hanbury Street. This is totally unbelievable, and he is just one of three witnesses whose evidence shows the correct time of her death to be around 5.30 am.
As for your bumptious lesson on cold delaying the onset of rigor, this I am well aware of, it is a well known pathological fact. Details of it can be found in magazines (such as Real Life Crimes) as well as many books. You are not the only one who can read Wolf, however you do not appear to be capable of understanding what you read. |
Author: DD
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 05:35 pm | | | Well..I used to post in here under a different name, but I was tired of all the slings and arrows hurled in mine and others directions that I placed myself in exile in disgust.(Regretably little seems to have changed) These boards were created to freely exchange theories and ideas with other(and I use the term with regret)''Ripperologists''..I have only been studying the case for 2 years now, (I'm sure some people will find that laughable) Both Wolf and Anon have been studying this case for as long as I've been alive(or longer). Perhaps If one looks into the abyss long enough, It starts looking back out at you. Sometimes you can look at a picture a million times and not notice what someone seeing it for the first time sees straight off, Perhaps it's time to look at things through 'different eyes' More food for thought.I can say nothing further so I'm outta here!! |
Author: RLeen
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 06:13 am | | Hello Everybody,
For what it's worth, there's nothing like a kipper for breakfast.
Thanking you
Rabbi Leen |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 10:07 am | | Hi, Rabbi:
Indeed, a kipper or fin and haddy eh? Lovely. But where did the potatoes come from. My hunch is that MJK's last meal was, as we have been discussing, a fish and chip meal, eaten late at night and not in the morning.
Chris George |
Author: Wolf
Tuesday, 14 December 1999 - 05:07 pm | | Well, well. Mr anon (or John or Alan or Robert) has left his apoplectic atack on Merry Christmas (I'm sure he doesn't even notice the incredible irony of it all) long enough to tern his gaze back on me.
"Food in the stomach takes hours to digest" he roars with conviction. Well, yes, a large heavy meal will take hours to digest but we have only been talking about a partially digested meal of fish and potatose. I even highlighted the word "partially" to show that we are deaaling with an incomplete process and that of a light meal. Try and argue with what I've actually written, okay?
"The onset of rigor mortis is so variable that it can be unreliable", Yes, I agree, but as I pointed out, using algor mortis in this case is totally useless and thus rigor is all we have to go on. Since you are adamant in supporting Dr. Bond's opinion and since you have just thrown out time of death based on rigor mortis what then are you using to base your trust in Bond? Are you saying that Bond's laughable estimate of time of death is correct based on the good doctor merely feeling the body and pronouncing it "comparatively cold"? You base all your conviction in that one touch? Or are you saying that the whole process used in 1888 should be looked on with some scepticism. If so, then you cannot argue that Bond was right and that I am wrong. The estimates that I have used come from the experts that I have talked to and in the Kelly case, are corroberated by the eyewitnesses. Considering that the inquest was carried out with obscene haste, how do you know who would have been called if it had gone on longer or if Mr. Baxter had been in charge? is that your yardstick for truth?
So, you have handled many dead bodies. Does that make you an expert in forensic pathology? Nope. I interviewed experts as well as read " a few textbooks" but I don't claim to be an expert. I just rely on them.
You have missed my point about Kelly not being seen that night entirely. People don't always come foreward with information to give to the police and this is demonstrated by the fact that literally dozens of people must have seen Kelly alive that night (like the Ringers), had talked to her or had a drink with her. Why didn't they go to the police? Where were they at the inquest? Do we now conclude that is was impossible for her to have gone out that night because no one apparently saw her at the pubs?
Farson's guide to the British aired in 1959. Cullen's book was published in 1965, the same year as Odell's, but Cullen carried the wieght of the Macnaghten memoranda. Up to that time Tabram was included as a Ripper victim but the memoranda changed all that or don't you remember? "JTR in Fact and Fiction" may be an excellent book it it didn't have the impact of Cullen's. It didn't change the thinking about the Whitechapel murders that Cullen did. You seem to be a bit hazy as to what the prevailing views were at the time.
Dr. Phillips gave his opinion on time of death as an answer to a direct questin from the coroner: "How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?" and Phillips answered with,"at least two hours and probably more. Phillips then stated that it was a cool morning and that the body was apt to cool quickly. What he didn't say was that he wanted to change his mind and radically move his estimate downwards. He answered the coroners question with at least two hours and probably more and that's what he meant.
Lets look at the facts and please try and concentrate on what I'm saying.
Fact: Dr. Phillips arrived at Hanbury Street at 6:30 am.
Fact: Dr. Phillips observed, "Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was commencing".
Fact: Phillips stated that, "it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body was apt to cool more rapidly".
Fact: Rigor mortis generally begins to appear in the body in about 2 to 4 hours.
Fact: Cooling of the body will delay the onset of rigor mortis. (you have even conceded this point from your readings of various scientific journals such as "Real LIfe Crimes".)
So, if it takes 2 to 4 hours for the onset of rigor and rigor was just starting at 6:30 and the cool morning would delay the onset of rigor, then how does the rigor appear in only an hour if Chapman was killed at 5:30? Especially when Dr. Phillips opinion was that death had occurred 2 hours, probably more from the time that he first examined her at 6:30. As for John Richardson, he lied.
Oh and one last thing, on behalf of everyone on the boards, I would like to thank you for your huge contributions of 'new facts" and knowledge for which we are all so grateful
Wolf. |
Author: Boris
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 01:34 am | | | Will you nitwits finally listen to anon for once and for all, he knows this case, you all don't. Notice how his posts are getting longer and longer as time goes on? |
Author: anon
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 02:48 am | | Well we have to admit it, there is absolutely no way that Big Bad is going to change his minority views. Perhaps if no one responds to him he will stop trying to ram them down other people's throats.
Following his illogical ideas to a logical conclusion is very difficult. Why? Because what Big Bad thinks is fact whilst what anyone else thinks is opinion, and they are honest enough to admit it. But not Big Bad.
The light meal/heavy meal, as with most other points in this case is a specious argument. For if a light meal it would depend on at what time it was consumed (As Mr George has argued it could have been late at night) or, if she had vomited as per the aguments of the alter-theorists, then what was left of the meal inside her would have been small enough for the doctors to think it a light meal. There is no positive answer.
Big Bad points out that rigor mortis is totally useless in ascertaining time of death but then goes on to do just that. Sorry, I'm still trying to work that one out. I am not basing everything on Bond as I have already explained. But obviously with nothing between Big Bad's ears this snippet just whizzed straight through. I base my conclusions on all the ambient circumstances and on the other testimony.
To answer Big Bad's question, no, I am not an expert on forensic pathology, but then neither is he. However, I do have quite a good knowledge of this subject.
Regarding witnesses having seen Kelly the night before when she was out, yes there would have been many, which no doubt the police found. However, the police don't call everyone, only those with anything of relevance to say and the last ones to see her alive.
As I recall, in the mid-60's, the two seminal Ripper books, Cullen and Odell, did not receive any great publicity and were both critically acclaimed as good books. There were no Ripper groups, clubs, clique of authors or TV presentations on it then and therefore no generally accepted 'tally' for the Ripper. In fact it was until the emergence of the mad Stowell theory in 1970 that the subject began to receive any great recognition and following. The rest is history, the 1970's, mainly with the publication of Farson's book, saw the emergence of many fixed ideas and canons. But, of course, this is not the argument. The argument was over the fact that Big Bad accused me of having modern ideas and not being able to remember the 60's and 70's. But, again, he was wrong.
I do not propose to continue the pointless argument over the time of death of Chapman. Big Bad obviously has Tully's ideas firmly fixed in his head. The most accurate and detailed book on Jack the Ripper is that by Philip Sugden, and I recommend that anyone who wishes to decide on a time of death for Chapman should read Sugden's detailed analysis of this point. Out of Big Bad and Sugden I know whose ideas I would be more prepared to accept.
As for my all important question to Big Bad, which was what new facts has he added to the case, all I received was a question back, and that was the one that I had asked him in the first place.
P.S. Big Bad - is your spelling really that atrocious or do you get really excited and hysterical when you make these posts? |
Author: Wolf
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 07:26 pm | | I found anon's last post to be very instructive. He posts that there is no way that I am going to change my minority views. Why should I or anyone else be expected to conform to his narrow logic or knowledge? Yes, I'm sure your world would be a lot simpler if no one ever questioned your majority views anon. We should all meekly read Sugden and agree with his every word because he asked questions of forensic pathologists on time...Oh wait a second, he didn't, did he? He used primary sources but he didn't do any study of pathology. But why let that stand in the way of knowledge, never rock the boat, eh anon.
I have to wonder at your ability to read my posts and comprehend. You might want to stop a second, think about what I'm saying and then start frothing at the mouth. My illogical ideas? Don't you mean my ideas that you disagree with or can't come to grips with? Are my ideas not based on logic or simply not based on Sugden? I have to wonder about your logic, however, with this statement: "what Big Bad thinks is fact whilst anyone else thinks is opinion." This is apparently in relation to my list of facts. So are you saying that Phillips's arrival at Hanbury Street at 6:30 is not a fact but only your opinion anon? Are all those facts offered only opinions? Since you decided not to attempt answering my questions about this string of facts I will ask you again to please respond to each fact and either explain them away or at least show us why they are only opinions.
Once more you seem to have totally misunderstood or tried to ignore a simple statement about the meal. Please try to read this calmly and rationally if that's at all possible. A light meal versus a heavy meal has less to do with the volume of food eaten as much as it does with the ease of digestion or type of food eaten. Now, you have stated that you "have quite a good knowledge of this subject", (pathology) but then prove to everyone that you don't! Fact, oops, sorry about that, Medical opinion: A light meal will digest quickly and more easily than a heavy meal. Medical opinion: Fish and potatoes are easy to digest and thus constitute a light meal. Medical opinion: A light meal will digest in under two hours, a partially digested meal, less time than that. Oh, by the way, Christopher-George is arguing that it was impossible for anyone in Whitechapel in 1888 to be selling fish and potatoes in the morning. Impossible? Well, I suppose that it's in Sugden, although I can't find it, and is thus a sacrosanct fact.
Gee anon, I have read and re-read my last post and nowhere can I find that I stated that rigor mortis, is totally useless in ascertaining time of death". I guess you just decided to twist my words in order to bolster your attack on them (kind of pathetic really). I did agree with you that rigor can be unreliable and I did state that algor mortis (that means the drop in temperature of the body after death. Apparently your "quite good knowledge of pathology" isn't as good as you claim), as totally useless. Rather than actually respond to my study of modern forensic pathology, you simply attack me and the idea that I might be right. So, you have handled dead bodies, so you claim to have a somewhat sporadic knowledge of pathology, you have yet to actually respond to what I have been arguing with any educated opinion. Ram my opinions down your throat? How about, simply trying to get a straight answer from you about what I have written! And yes, I have read Tully but he has only bolstered my own long held convictions. As for you, I will concede that you probably have had many years of reading books on the Whitechapel murders, no original thoughts or ideas, but you have read the books.
Yes, there would have been many witnesses who had seen Kelly that night, you admit, "but the police don't call everyone only those with anything of relevance to say and the last ones to see her alive." It must be, then, that the police didn't care where Kelly spent her last hours, with whom, and who she might have left with or who the blotchy faced man with the pail of beer was. Was none of this relevant? Of course all of it was but you seem more interested in scoring Brownie points than offering a rational explanation to my argument.
In the end, you seem incapable of rationally debating the salient points of my argument so you attack instead. "What new facts have you added to the case?" you shriek. Is that your rebuttle to my ideas? That only those who have added new facts have the right to post on these boards or to hold opinions that go against the majority? Your attitude seems to be that if you can't logically argue the ideas then attack the one who holds the ideas. That and my spelling!? (How old do you say you are?) My opinions of who you are and what kind of man you are, are solidified with each of your posts.
Wolf. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 07:52 pm | | Wolf / Anon
If either of you would care to drop in a few previously unknown facts, I'm sure us mere mortals would appreciate it.
The odd new morsal of info might just elevate this verbal tennis match to something approaching 'interest'.
We would hate to get the impression that this duo were 'playing to an audience'.
Take it to email guy's, or add something worth reading.
Regards Jon (real name) |
Author: DD
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 08:53 pm | | Here, Here Jon!!Dear Mr. Wolf, I'll send you a Concorde ticket and you and Anon can duke it out in person over the Holidays!! It'll be spectacular! We'll put it on Pay-per-View!! :-)
Or maybe we should just invite you both to the Conference in NJ in April 2000. A verbal onslaught! Suspect against suspect!!'Doctor' Death VS. The 'Butcher' from Broadmoor, think of the ratings!! |
Author: Diana Comer
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 10:08 pm | | Wouldn't the speed with which food is digested vary with the nature of the food? For instance potatoes are mostly starch and fish is mostly protein. Would that be slower than a sugary meal?
Of course if they were fried then you have the addition of fat. It all has to do with complexity of molecules or something and I admit I'm not real knowlegeable here -- maybe we have a dietitian among us? |
Author: Diana Comer
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 10:12 pm | | | I just had another idea and I admit that I would not care to be the guinea pig here. Is anyone brave enough to eat some fish and chips, wait an hour and then with the help of a little Syrup Ipecac . . . well you get the picture. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Wednesday, 15 December 1999 - 11:52 pm | | Hello Wolf:
You can quote my own words back to me if you like but I do not think I ever said it was impossible for Mary Jane Kelly to purchase and eat a fish and potatoes meal at 8:00 a.m., and Viper has said such might have been available in the East End.... I just think it improbable and unlikely for her to have eaten the meal at that time rather than at night when such a meal would in my view have been more likely to be eaten. As I said before, and in support of anon, clearly, you are taking a minority view, which of course you are entitled to take. Except that it seems that the majority of the rest of us believe that your position is untenable.
Chris George |
Author: anon
Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 04:00 am | | Wolf,
I am pleased that you found my last post to be instructive. I do not expect you or anyone to conform with my 'narrow logic or knowledge.' I have merely pointed out what I think is the most likely scenario. I don't meekly read Sugden and agree with his every word (for whatever reason). In fact I don't agree with his every word and I have identified one or two errors in his book. Also alternative views can be challenging and refreshing, as are some of yours.
As these posts have become more and more childish (mine as well as yours) I think we have begun to bore our audience. I think that we have passed the debate side of things and moved on to winding each other up which really must get everyone down. My 'nothing between your ears' and spelling snipes were, obviously, not true, and were uncalled for. I think it has passed the 'fun' stage and is becoming silly.
I think that we both have to accept the fact that we have some strong opinions here and neither of us is going to change the other's. I do know from your other posts that there are several areas where we are on common ground. I don't ignore your statements, I simply don't agree with all of them, but that is probably true of most of the debaters on these boards.
I believe that we are both capable of debating the salient points, but our views on them, in this case, appear intransigent. As for your final paragraph, well, your comments are, I guess, understandable, but I was sorry to note the bitter tone in them.
Jon, thank you for the sane comments.
DD, and Diana, thank you for your interest and 'for hangin' in there.
Chris, I guess you and I think differently to Wolf, and thank you for the support. But, it would be a boring old world if we all thought the same.
Merry Christmas to Wolf, and to everyone. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 09:32 am | | Very nise, as a certain gentleman might say. I have follwed this discussion with interest (and a certain amount of dismay). I have neither commented nor queried, as forensic pathology is not my line of country, but I have learned some interesting things here from both Anon and Wolf, and want to thank them both for the facts AND opinions they have set forth.
A gentlemanly post, Anon. Would that all "anons" could be as gracious.
And thanks to DD, for starting the whole ball rolling.
Merry Christmas and best wishes for the New Year.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Diana Comer
Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 07:30 pm | | | what??????????? Nobody wants to try my experiment? Is everyone as faint hearted as I am? |
Author: DD
Thursday, 16 December 1999 - 08:13 pm | | | Sorry Diana, guess so :) Well all's well that ends well I guess. I had no idea my little comment/observation would cause such a hubbub. I quite agree that sometimes we have no other course but to agree to disagree. Such is the 'Nature of the beast' (to steal a chapter heading):) It was actually 'that book' which got me to thinking about her vomit in the first place!! I guess I'll re-read Tully next Ha ha! Happy Holidays All. |
Author: NickDanger
Friday, 17 December 1999 - 12:43 am | | Just when I was starting to get depressed at the way things were going, Anon knocks me over with a gentlemanly and reassuring message. It was a welcome surprise, Anon.
Best wishes,
Nick |
Author: Wolf
Friday, 17 December 1999 - 02:23 am | | Well, I must say that I am at a loss for words and feeling somewhat embarrassed. Anon, thank you for a very gracious post. I can only but agree with your sentiments and thank you for them. It took a certain amount of courage to write and I don't think that I would have been the first to extend the olive branch. I did, however wonder where we both were going with our "debate", pistols at ten paces it seemed. Here's hoping you and yours and all the other posters on the boards have a very Merry Christmas.
Stewart James Wolf Vanderlinden |
Author: Bob Hinton
Friday, 17 December 1999 - 03:53 am | | Dear Everyone,
As regards to the state of digestion of MJK's last meal, I'm afraid re-creating the experiment wouldnt do any good.
The rate of digestion depends on several factors.
1. The type of food consumed. Tough stringy items like root vegetables take longer than white bread for instance.
2. The size of the food particles. If you gulp your food in large lumps, these will take longer to digest than a well chewed pureed residue.
3. Strength of stomach acid. This depends on the physical charateristics of the victim, some have stronger acid than others.
The Helen Priestly murder in Aberdeen April 1934 was one where stomach contents played a significant part.
She had eaten her last meal of meat and potatoes at 12.30am. Her body was found at 5am. The stomach contents showed 'early changes of digestion' and death was assumed to be at about one or two hours after her meal. This was later narrowed to one and a half hours after her meal.
It was later shown that this estimate was extremely accurate.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: peter martin
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 03:18 pm | | Who's to say she ate the meal fresh? She could have bought it earlier tried to heat it up on the fire!
Wouldn't the fire and alcohol in the bloodstream affect the time that Rigor Mortis set in?
Pete |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 01:17 pm | | Hello everyone,
I believe that Mary Jane Kelly was killed mid- morning and not during the night.I also think that Caroline Maxwell was telling the truth and wasn't mistaken,here are my reasons:
1.Mrs.Maxwell gave her statement the very day the murder was commmitted,so she could not have confused the dates.
2.She saw Kelly twice that morning.
3.Maxwell spoke to Kelly,calling her Mary Jane.Surely if it wasn't kelly,she would have been corrected.
4.Mrs.Maxwell's description of what kelly was wearing,tied in with other witnesses descriptions.
5.If there were any other 25 year old,ginger,gin swilling,Irish beauties answering to the name of Mary Jane, living in the same area at that time,we would surely be aware of them.
6.Taken in isolation,Maurice Lewis'statements seem to contradict one another,but surely the very fact that somebody else claimed to have seen Kelly that morning tends to add weight to the argument that Caroline Maxwell was telling the truth.
7.The possibility of a third witness that morning--the"Unamed woman" mentioned by one of the newspapers.
Of course,there are many questions to be asked within each of the reasons that I have given,but I think too many people dissmis Maxwell's evidence too easily.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Jason Jones
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 06:49 pm | | Hello Arfa/Mick,
Several reasons that you give are indeed more likely to prompt questions than be accepted without question. Let me try a few points.
On point 4, you state that Mrs Maxwell’s description of what Mary Kelly what wearing matched other witnesses. Which witnesses? The only witness who even suggested seeing her on that morning was Maurice Lewis – and his testimony was filtered through a newspaper reporter or two. He never gave evidence at the inquest. If you are referring to other witnesses, they all reported seeing her the night before - and though her wardrobe may not have been extensive, she might just have changed clothes for an early morning pint at the Britannia.
Point 5. Irish women in their twenties, in London, answering to the name of Mary Kelly, might not have been as rare as you think. For instance, a recent article in Ripperologist (Oct 2000) by Mark King showed the existence one other.
Point 7. Regarding the third ‘unnamed woman’ - To which newspaper article are you referring?
As a general point. Mrs Maxwell’s evidence was the only evidence presented at the inquest to suggest that Kelly was alive in the morning. If her view had been accepted, why were no other customers of the Britannia called to give evidence? It was, after all, the day of the Lord Mayor’s show, and if the East Enders of the time were anything like me, there might have been one or two who would try to drink the pubs dry on public holidays. So why did the police or newspapers not manage to locate any of these Britannia customers on that day.
J |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Sunday, 15 July 2001 - 08:29 pm | | Hello Jason,
In my last post I was refering to the witnesses that had seen Kelly during the night.It seems too much of a coincidence that someone would have been waring the same combination and colour of shawl and dress etc..
You say that Irish Mary Kelly's might not be as rare is I think,but I purposely emphasized the many,and unique combination of features that would have made Kelly stand out from the rest"like a sore thum". The age,the ginger hair,the name MARY JANE,the Irish accent,she was in the Spitalfields area and unlike most other women,she wasn't wearing a hat.
As for evidence given at the inquest,well,what a strange affair that was!
The whole buisness was conducted in such a odd manner and was unusually brief.
Infact I have even considered the possibility that certain key pieces of information were suppressed at the inquest because some feared that Jack the Ripper himself,may have been present!
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 06:35 am | | Hi Jason,
It usually takes courage - or a certain recklessness - or a strong reason, for someone to buck the trend. We don't know the reasons for Maxwell sticking to her story despite it contradicting almost all other testimony. But it may have been human nature for those involved to avoid pursuing lines of enquiry which might have resulted in confirming Maxwell's statement, thereby causing all the more readily-acceptable testimony, including the official estimated time of death, to be thrown into dispute.
As I say, it takes a special type of person, or a special reason, to go against the grain like that. It's a pity that it appears no one did wonder enough about Maxwell to go out on a limb and do that extra bit of digging, which might have cleared things up one way or t'other.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 01:29 pm | | BUT - !!! - imagine that you really saw her ! Then nothing would be able to convince you otherwise , it would be ludicrous and you would stick to your story no matter what !
I think Mrs Maxwell really did see Mary ( or who she thought was Mary ) that morning , thats why she stuck to her story so vigourously. I don't think that we can read anything into the slight changes in her account , this might have been just refinement of various details , the core remained the same.
The fact that no statements were taken from the Ringers or customers in the pub is mystifying , if you believed there was some sort of coverup over this then you wouldn't be the first. But what was being covered up ? |
Author: Jason Jones
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 03:57 pm | | Hello Mick/Arfa,
Let’s look at the evidence relating to MJK’s dress. Caroline Maxwell stated that MJK wore a “dark dress black velvet body, and a coloured wrapper round her neck” in the police statement, but a “dark skirt – velvet body – and morone (maroon) shawl & no hat” when questioned at the inquest.
The only other witness evidence from these sources is from Mary Ann Cox in her statement : “no hat, a red pellorine (pelerine) and a dark shabby skirt.”, but at the inquest : “a linsey frock, red knitted crossover around shoulders, no hat or bonnet”. None of the other witnesses described her clothes. So we only have Mrs Cox’s self-contradictory evidence to check against from the previous evening. Even the eagle-eyed Hutchinson didn’t describe MJK’s clothes.
On MJK’s description, you picked on ‘ginger’, as the hair colo(u)r, but you could have equally have chosen “fair Emma” as in “fair complexion, with light hair” – The Times, so I stick by my case that identification of a unique Mary Kelly is not guaranteed. Incidentally, why did you describe MJK as “gin swilling” – surely if she went to Ringer’s, it would be for beer, as in the Caroline Maxwell statement : “I have just had a drink of ale and have brought it all up”.
My best guess regarding Mrs Maxwell’s evidence is that she was mistaken. She was interviewed by the police on the day of the murder, and finding herself called to give evidence which contradicted that of others, she may just have decided to stick to her story, possibly in the hope that the police would not call her bluff and call her to testify.
Incidentally, Sugden raises the possibility that Mrs Maxwell was drunk, but does not expand on this idea.
| ----------------- |
Hello Caz,
You state “It usually takes courage - or a certain recklessness - or a strong reason, for someone to buck the trend.” .I don’t think Caroline Maxwell (CM) knew she was doing so when she made her statement. It was, after all, taken on the day of the murder, and she would not have known the medical evidence that was to be presented. But she would have been concerned to turn up at the inquest to find that her statement was in so obvious a contradiction of that of Dr Phillips (for instance). If she felt she was right why not write to the press, or at least give another interview. She seems to have exited stage left along with the rest of the Miller’s Court cast immediately after the inquest.
I also feel that when the medical reports arrived, presumably on the day of the murder, the Police would have dropped inquiries into the Maxwell statement at that point.
J |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 04:37 pm | | Hi Jason,
Just a quick note, as I have written on Mrs. Maxwell at length previously. My detailed reading of her testimony can be found on the "Victims"/"Mary Jane Kelly" board. See especially a lengthy post on Thursday, March 01, 2001 - 08:45 am and a series of posts and the subsequent discussion that followed, all the way through to March 10th, for complete information and a more careful and detailed reading, line by line, of Mrs. Maxwell's three separate statements.
You write:
"My best guess regarding Mrs Maxwell’s evidence is that she was mistaken."
Yes, this is many people's "best guess."
But it is only that. A guess.
Unfortunately, there remains no real evidence concerning her to support it. Mrs. Maxwell details a specific conversation she had with Mary. Once you are actually speaking to someone, you know who that someone is. She details when she had it and what errand she was on when she had it and her story and its time and day are later confirmed by those at her stated destination.
She tells the story of the conversation at least three times and is thoroughly consistent.
There are problems, of course. Abberline makes a marginal note about the exact time in his own hand in one of her statements and it's not clear whether she said the remark or he is inferring it.
But she tells the story using specific recounted dialogue and she sticks to it despite what she finds at the inquest.
Now, I am not saying she was telling the truth or that she saw Mary that morning.
I do not know.
But I am saying that there is absolutely no way to know, and that her testimony still stands as a completely and radically undecidable moment in this case that cannot simply be dismissed and that it will not go away with wish-fulfillment based theories like "she must have had the day wrong" (it was that same day, when she first told her story) or "she must have been mistaken" (this tells us nothing about how she might have been mistaken) or "she must have been drunk" (there is no contemporary evidence, in fact, about her whatsoever to support either of these last two fanciful and desire-based theory).
What the expert's different readings of Mrs. Maxwell's testimony most often reveal is their own respective willingness to conveniently make problems go away and to fit every troublesome detail of the case somehow into their own particular theory despite the fact that Mrs. Maxwell remains, and doesn't fit any, and any attempt to dismiss her remains simply the result of theoretical prejudice and critical sleight-of-hand.
Her words must remain, I'm afraid, in the realm of, quite simply, "we don't know." And anyone not willing to be honest and admit at least that is covering over the holes or inconsistencies in his own theory to make it look as seamless as possible, but is also ignoring the annoying facts.
She is, the Greeks would say, an aporia. Her testimony remains, for this case, a genuinely and radically undecidable moment which can only be erased, incompletely, through a powerful desire for soundness and completeness, but which always returns and remains despite the best attempts of theorists to make it go away.
That's why her story remains so troublesome, even if we simply can't finally explain it. At least we should just admit that she still poses an apparently unsolvable problem for us at the moment, even if we happen to think, as I do, that she was somehow wrong.
All the best,
--John
PS: I still think her life story, especially after that November weekend which unexpectedly must have changed her life forever, would make a fascinating study in speculative fiction or in film. |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 05:29 pm | | Jason,
Even if we neglect the details of the various statements given,will still have at least two people claiming to have seen Kelly way after Bond's estimated time of death why?What could they possibly gain from doing so?
As far as MJKs hair colour is concerned,I agree that nobody seems to know this for sure.
However,as Kelly was refered to buy various nicknames:
Black Mary,Fair Emma and Ginger,I have simply settled for the least ambiguous of the three,namely"Ginger".
john,a good unbiassed post,I agree that we simply cannot just sweep Maxwell's statement under the carpet.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Jason Jones
Monday, 16 July 2001 - 07:26 pm | | Hello John,
Following your advice, I looked at the Kelly posting from March, and certainly most of the meat in the Maxwell evidence was well chewed then. It can be quite difficult to search through the boards and find all the evidence relating to a particular topic, and I think that even in the unlikely event of something conclusive being decided, there will be someone in six months asking similar questions on the same topic. Possibly even me!
You are right on many points. I was only giving my best guess, and the point was in answer to a point from
Mike/Arfa. When most people read the evidence, they like a neat story with no contradictions to emerge, but here, we cannot have that, because the Maxwell evidence contradicts the Medics evidence. Indeed the warning given by the coroner is precisely such an attempt to downgrade her evidence to get as clear a picture as he could. Some recent authors (e.g. Beadle) have given the preference to Mrs Maxwell’s story, while others favor the medics. There is just no way round this dilemma, but my view, and that is all it is, is to favor the medics, if only because the coroner and police at the time did so. Even so, I will admit, this is a very tenuously stacked deck of cards and any new evidence could topple it in an instant.
Mrs Maxwell was consistent on the occasions she told her story. But she had quite a short story to tell, and a narrative at that. I feel that a narrative is easier to remember, because of the way the brain links the ideas within it than say, a series of tenuously related facts. For instance, Hutchinson managed to remember his ‘story’ extremely well when talking to press after giving a statement to the police, but the small number of contradictions in his statements were in the detailed description of his witness/suspect – a visual image or a collection of unrelated facts. With Mrs Maxwell, she just has to remember two items of clothing accurately to convince us that she had not changed her story. But she makes slight mistakes when trying to relate the words spoken by Mary Kelly.
I agree with your earlier posting that the Maxwell evidence has been left as an afterthought by several experts. But for each such expert, there is an author who need Mrs Maxwell’s evidence to explain a new theory, whether it be MJK being pregnant, or a conspiracy for a mistaken victim identity. I don’t think many experts completely ignore the Maxwell evidence, but the emphasis placed on it can just be a reflection of that persons interpretation of it in conjunction with all the other evidence.
Hello Mike/Arfa,
The evidence of Maurice Lewis was so contradictory that he did not even make it to the witness stand, so while it’s interesting, it is not so challenging as that of Mrs Maxwell. The motives for making contradictory statements cannot be guessed. If temporarily we assume that Mrs M was right and Phillips/Bond wrong, then asking the same question, why did Phillips give the time of death evidence that he did. He must have believed what he was saying. Now going back to the Phillips right and Maxwell wrong. The same argument holds. She could have believed she was right, but not been so.
J |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 06:08 am | | Hi Jason,
You wrote:
'I also feel that when the medical reports arrived, presumably on the day of the murder, the Police would have dropped inquiries into the Maxwell statement at that point.'
That's the very point I was making - the comfort factor. Maxwell's brand of testimony would have rankled. It's human nature. Along come the experts with their opinion, and Maxwell can be put out of sight and out of mind - end of discomfort. If anyone tries to wheel her back in at some future date, at best she was honestly mistaken, at worst she was a fantasist, or got herself intoxicated first thing in the morning - not much better than the unfortunates she had occasion to chat with.
As John says, the chances are Maxwell did get it wrong, for whatever reason. But the door ought to have been closed on her and locked at the time, considering the police knew by then that they were struggling with the mother of all murder investigations, and a mile of contradictory expert testimony over the killer's skills and exact timing of previous attacks etc.
Yes, the odds will always be against the Maxwells of this world. But we can never afford to say never. There will always be times, however rare, when we get it totally arse about face, because we choose to go with the flow, and ignore the word of the little man or woman, because a preferred 'expert' tells us they "must be wrong" - the comfort factor.
There was a programme the other night about the perils of fingerprinting evidence. A policewoman from Scotland was charged with perjury, because her fingerprint was allegedly found at the scene of a crime, that she swore she had never visited. Everyone knows prints can't lie, so no one believed her - and yes - her colleagues even began questioning her sanity, and she seriously contemplated suicide because she knew she was telling the truth and couldn't live with being thought a liar by everyone, including her close friends and family. In desperation, she found an American fingerprint expert who discovered her print didn't match the one found at the scene, despite several 'independent' police experts from the same force having compared them and sworn otherwise. Another independent expert from elsewhere confirmed the American's findings, and the case against the policewoman was dropped. But still no one has admitted to being “wrong” or apologised - human nature and the comfort factor rearing its head in a particularly unattractive way. Experts can be "right" or "wrong", almost at random it seems, while Mr and Mrs Nobody get the blame every time - innocent or guilty.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jason Jones
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 03:13 pm | | Hello Caz,
Yes, but Mrs Maxwell was allowed to testify. This remains difficult to understand, but I think we must speculate/hypothesise within the confines of this and the other facts in order to take the case forward. Having agreed that her evidence contradicted that of others, we can move on to speculate why she was allowed to testify. Possibly the police didn’t expect the inquest to end so suddenly, and may have been expecting to be questioned about her evidence after an adjournment. It was slightly odd that all of the non-medical witnesses were from Miller’s Court. Did no one else anywhere in the metropolis have anything to say? Were no market porters interviewed on the basis of Mrs Maxwell’s testimony? We cannot know. The Miller’s Court people all gave witness statements on the day of the murder (9th), but we know of no other witnesses called on the 12th. Was no one else found over that weekend with a contribution to make? Again the evidence provides no answers at present.
You said “Mr and Mrs Nobody get the blame every time - innocent or guilty”. A diarist methinks  I was reminded of the words of the old song :
-------------------- and the poor what gets the blame.
It’s the rich what gets the money. Oh isn’t it a shame!
J |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 07:58 pm | | Dear Caroline,
Your line of argument re, experts, reminds me of a very recent case..."The Magic Particle Case", as I have called it. At least three witnesses insisted they saw a person close to the scene of the crime who was UNACCOUNTED for in the police
reconstruction of the crime scene. Indeed, the police surveillance cameras even recorded a vehicle leaving the area of the crime scene...going through a red light and all the resources of the British Police Force have failed to establish both the vehicle and its owner's existence.
Could it be that the witnesses were dreaming and that the vehicle was some IT mirage?
Could we be on the brink of a most extraordinary discovery for mankind...that all accounts, narratives, observations, etc. are but fragmental minutiae of a vast collective dream-state...without an ending (in fact)?
Or am I just dreamin'...
Rosey O'Ryan :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 08:33 pm | | Dear Jason,
We can speculate and hypothesize for all eternity
but that ain't goner nail "Jack the Ripper". It appears that the only fact we have is... DOUBT.
A puzzling parchment that once brought into the light for closer scrutiny...crumbles into dust and disappears before our startled eyes!
What is this phenomenon?
Count de Rosey Crooks :-) |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Tuesday, 17 July 2001 - 09:13 pm | | Hello everyone,
If Caroline Maxwell had been mistaken and spoke to somebody other than Kelly that morning,why didn't that person come forward and eliminate any confusion. I'm sure most people at the time,particularly women,must have read or heard about every newspaper article published about the Ripper.Also,if Mrs.Maxwell had got the wrong person,it would have been probable that she would have seen the same woman again(although embarrassment may have prevented her from telling anyone).
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 06:47 am | | | Who WAS Mrs. Maxwell? |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 09:25 am | | Hi Mick,
One additional point. You begin by saying, "If Caroline Maxwell had been mistaken and spoke to somebody other than Kelly that morning..."
Well, if Caroline Maxwell had been mistaken and spoke to somebody other than Kelly that morning, that somebody else was apparently also named "Mary." Mrs. Maxwell testifies that she called Mary by name ("Why Mary what brings you up so early?") and Mary responded, calling her "Carry" ("Oh Carry, I feel so bad! She knew my name.")
At least, that's her story.
--John |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 09:38 am | | Hello Rosey,
I sense that your question isn't as straight forward as at sounds,so I wont advise you to read the articles written about this particular witness.
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 09:47 am | | Hello John,
I agree entirely and If you read one of my earlier posts on this thread(a few days ago),you will see that I made this very point and have given a list of about eight reasons why we should believe Caroline Maxwell's statement.
regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 09:55 am | | Thanks, Mick.
I remember your list and just thought I'd remind people at this point that it would have been very difficult for it to be a simple case of mistaken identity, since both women allegedly addressed each other by name when they met.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 06:53 pm | | Dear Arfa,
I have the impression that Caroline Maxwell and Joseph Barnett knew each other...and that Mrs Maxwell was providing 'information'to Mr Barnett.
She may well have been Joe's "eyes and ears" at Millers Court.Hmm.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 18 July 2001 - 07:09 pm | | A vast collective dream state Rosey ?
Don't drop the ' BOHM ' too soon !
Simon |
Author: Jason Jones
Thursday, 19 July 2001 - 05:14 pm | | In order to accept the Maxwell story, it is necessary to reject the medical evidence in at least three different ways.
Firstly, Bond’s estimate of time of death (1-2 a.m.), and Phillips (5-6 a.m.) must be explained. To accept the Maxwell story that MJK was alive at about 9.00 a.m. requires experienced Doctors Bond and Phillips to have been wrong by a considerable margin.
Secondly, it is necessary to reject Bond’s analysis of the time the last meal had been taken. Bond estimated this as 3-4 hours before death, but, by believing Maxwell’s evidence, we must reject this as less than two hours elapsed between MJK being seen by Maxwell and the body being discovered by Bowyer at 10.45.
Thirdly, if Maxwell’s comments regarding MJK’s vomit are correct, how was there sufficient food left in the stomach for Bond to carry out an analysis. Mrs. Maxwell claimed that MJK said she had “brought it all up again”. I emphasise the all here. Maxwell claimed to have seen it in the roadway, so we’re not talking about a small amount here. Yet Bond claimed to find in the stomach : “partly digested food of fish and potatoes and similar food”. There was certainly enough food for him to make an estimate of the time before death at which the last meal was eaten.
As an aside, does Bond’s statement “The skin cuts to the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis” indicate that MJK may have been partially strangled before her throat was cut? (Ecchymosis is bruising.)
J |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 04:57 am | | Hi Jason,
Suggesting that we perhaps ought not to reject the Maxwell story and forget all about it, is not quite the same as suggesting we should accept it. You say that to accept it requires experienced doctors to have been wrong by a considerable margin. What I'd like someone to confirm for me is what kind of previous experience these doctors would have had with bodies, discovered within a day of being killed and extensively mutilated, within the confines of a small room. Had the times of death of previous similar victims been established, so that reasonable comparisons could be made? This is something I just don't have any information about, and would be interested to know, from any medics out there, how one went about gaining such experience and knowledge, if Mary's type of death was not commonplace.
Also, as we don't know what time Mary ate her last meal, I'm not sure that it really helps to know how long it had been in her stomach when she died. When 'Mary' told 'Carrie' that she had "brought it all up again", the woman was apparently referring to her recent hair of the dog half-pint. It's just possible she might have tried a spot of breakfast earlier (food is thought to cure a hangover too), which she managed to keep down, but still left her feeling wretched, hence the beer - last in, first to come back up, as it were.
We can only guess, but this is all academic anyway if Maxwell was making this all up. And, as John Omlor observed, it's a bit hard to imagine she was merely mistaken about what happened, if they are supposed to have addressed each other by name. (Mind you, if a casual acqaintance of mine mistook me for someone else and got my name wrong, while I was feeling like sh*te and throwing up, I probably wouldn't bother to correct her. I might answer back, though, "Yes, Gladys, I do feel queer." )
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jason Jones
Friday, 20 July 2001 - 05:11 pm | | Hello Caz,
I am in no way rejecting the Maxwell story out of hand. Indeed the fact that I am posting on this board is evidence of this. In my last post I was just listing three hurdles, all of which must be overcome for the Maxwell story to have a chance of being a true account of the events of that morning.
You questioned the relevant experience of Doctors Bond and Phillips. This has some validity, as murders of this type are so rare, but the fact that Bond was willing to commit to paper his estimates of time of death and time before death since last meal was taken, must give some measure of his confidence in these values. After all, in the event of someone being charged, they would have been quoted in evidence, and Bond would have had to defend himself.
I think it is important to know when she had her last meal. If she vomited everything before 8.30, when Mrs Maxwell claimed to have seen her, the meal remains found by Bond must have been eaten after this time, possibly after 9.00 a.m., when Maxwell claimed to see her again. This is just not consistent with the 3-4 hour estimate given by Bond. I’m not impressed with your first in last out theory. If she had time to make it all they way to the roadway after a second portion, the two portions would have had time to get mixed up a bit in the stomach. Incidentally, fish and potatoes sounds like a supper rather than breakfast to me.
J |
|
|
|
|
