Mary Jane Kelly

** 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 **

Mary Jane Kelly

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Mary Jane Kelly

SUBTOPIC	MSGS	Last Updated
Archive through 03 August 2001	40	08/04/2001 08:32am
Archive through 08 January 2003	40	01/10/2003 10:53am
Archive through 13 January 2003	40	01/14/2003 01:37pm
Archive through 18 January 2003	40	01/19/2003 02:05pm
Archive through 24 January 2003	40	01/24/2003 07:36pm
Archive through 25 February 2002	40	04/20/2002 02:41am
Archive through 30 December 2002	40	12/31/2002 05:04pm
Archive through 31 January 2002	40	02/21/2002 07:33pm
Archive through April 01, 2001	40	04/01/2001 09:29pm
Archive through August 11, 1999	20	08/11/1999 09:34am
Archive through August 7, 1999	20	08/06/1999 11:42pm
Archive through December 10, 1999	65	12/10/1999 06:33am
Archive through February 14, 1999	70	02/14/1999 01:58am
Archive through January 27, 2001	40	01/27/2001 10:14pm
Archive through July 14, 2001	40	07/14/2001 01:57pm
Archive through July 17, 2001	40	07/17/2001 02:04am
Archive through July 22, 2001	40	07/22/2001 08:17am
Archive through 28 January 2003	40	01/29/2003 08:09pm
Archive through July 29, 2001	40	07/29/2001 11:28am
Archive through June 11, 1999	20	06/11/1999 05:28pm
Archive through March 04, 2001	40	03/04/2001 05:49am
Archive through March 06, 2001	40	03/06/2001 04:52pm
Archive through March 14, 1999	20	03/14/1999 02:14am
Archive through March 15, 2001	40	03/15/2001 07:52am
Archive through March 19, 2001	40	03/19/2001 08:02pm
Archive through March 3, 2000	20	03/03/2000 10:48am
Archive through November 11, 1999	20	11/11/1999 04:20am
Archive through October 11, 2000	40	10/11/2000 09:17am
Site of 13 Miller's court	83	03/02/2002 08:46pm
The 'FM' on Kelly's wall.	102	10/14/2001 09:18am
The fire in Kelly's room.	190	08/28/2001 02:05pm
The Kelly Crime Scene Photographs	355	03/25/2002 04:12pm
The missing key to Kelly's room.	575	05/07/2002 08:17pm
Was it really Mary Kelly?	264	01/25/2003 06:13pm

Author: Chris Hintzen Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 12:29 pm
Hi Richard, Well again I would have you look at Sir Charles' correspondence with Mathews about offering the Pardon. It states his reasons why a Pardon should be offered. Mathews comments about it could be as simply explained by all the flak he was getting by not offering a pardon sooner.(I suggest taking a look at the Parliamentary Debates on the Casebook Site for details of this.) We have no evidence, not even correspondence between the parties involved with the case, that suggest anything of what you are alluding too. However we do have correspondence between Sir Charles and Mathews on the reasons why the Pardon should be offered, which mainly deal with information gleaned from the previous cases as well as the public outcry at the time after Kelly's murder. We also have evidence of Sir Charles discussing the matter of a reward being offered long before Kelly's murder, even before the Double Event occurred, however nothing came of it, which Mathews was called to defend his rationale quite a few times in the Commons. Regards, Chris H.
Author: richard nunweek Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 12:52 pm
Hi chris, I will indeed look at the parliamentary debates on site, and i fully see your point. I can well understand why a pardon should have been offered after the kelly murder ,and should have been long before judging by witnesses statements in Berner street. However i still feel that Matthews comments on the 23rd nov, refer to specific evidence the police had after the kelly murder, and even if we have no correspondence, or statements what this may entail,I still feel justified in making this point. WHAT EVIDENCE?. Matthews clearly believed that the kelly murder had more evidence showing an acomplice , then the others , otherwise why make that specific statement. Regards richard.
Author: Dan Norder Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 12:59 pm
I don't think it's fair to say that Matthews clearly believed that the MJK had more evidenc of an accomplice. It may have simply been a way to explain why now finally a pardon was offered and earlier it wasn't. See the Anderson threads about not reading too much into statements by public officials. Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 02:27 pm
Hi All, Hands up everyone who thinks Sir Charles Warren had a lot of faith in his Detectives handling the murders. Then why is it Sir Charles Warren was prepared to personally interview Matthew Packer at Scotland Yard,(taken there, not by official police, but by a couple of 'Private Detectives') and take notes in his own hand? Just what was going on? Can you see a situation where the present day Metropolitan Police Commisioner personally interviews a 'dodgy' witness? A.
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 05:32 pm
Andy, Warren did not personally interview Matthew Packer, nor did he take notes in his own hand. Stewart
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 05:21 am
Hello Stewart, I was quoting from the A to Z (Begg,Fido & Skinner). They are in turn quoting from Scotland Yard Files no 24 215-216 of the 4th October 1888. Note by Sir Charles Warren of statement he took from Packer. Personally Stewart I am with you on this one. I have always thought that odd. I cannot believe for one moment the highest policeman in the land would be taking statements. Can you see the present Metropolitan Police Commissioner interviewing one of the suspected terrorists from the Finsbury Park Mosque? So is this a mistake in the A to Z? And if so, how did the mistake occur, & do we know who took actually did take Packer's statement? Comment's please Stewart. A.
Author: Stewart P Evans Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 08:22 am
Andy, This is an error in the A-Z. If you check The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, pages 130-131, you will find the correct information on this document. I have also corrected this and discussed the 4 October 1888 document [MEPO 3/140/221/A49301C, ff. 215-16], with illustrations, on these boards. It is not known who saw Packer, with Grand and Batchelor, when they went to Scotland Yard, but as you rightly indicate, there's no way that the Chief Commissioner would do so. However, they were making what amounted to serious allegations of police neglect (a disciplinary offence) in relation to a witness (Packer) and the police would have treated it as a grave matter. Hence the report by Detective Sergeant Stephen White of the same date [MEPO 3/140/221/A49301C, ff. 212-14] refuting Packer's allegations. The actual document that you cite as being in Warren's own hand, is actually in the hand of the (senior) Assistant Commissioner, Alexander Carmichael Bruce, who was obviously taking on some of Anderson's duties in his absence. The notes are clearly initialled 'ACB' and dated '4.10.88'. Whether Bruce, still a very high rank, would actually see Packer is doubtful. As the document is in the form of notes, and is not a proper witness statement, I have conjectured that like most of the original witness statements in this case, Packer's is missing. Thus Bruce probably used Packer's written statement (perhaps taken by a Detective Inspector, or even a Chief Inspector) to make notes in order to assess what Packer was saying. In the event they were able to show the highly dubious nature of Packer's claims and the police were shown to have conducted the inquiry properly, thus avoiding further press condemnation. I hope that this helps Andy. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 09:43 am
Stewart, Brillant! As I said no way would Warren had seen Packer. You must have, I take it, the Packer interview when he is talking about selling rabbits to a man a couple of nights after the murder in Berner Street! This report is from the local 'Ipswich Journal' of the 16th November 1888. We have the complete story. It shows Packer was 'Milking' his newly found importance to the hilt. A.
Author: Scott E. Medine Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 05:10 pm
In response to some of the email I have received, the following information is found in the transcripts of the coronerâ��s inquest: Maxwell was correct in saying that Kelly did not associate with anyone and kept to herself. The cry of OH MURDER came from a female outside in the court yard and not from the apartment of Mary Kelly. Cox was not exactly forth coming with all of her information. Although she may not have seen or heard the killer she heard more than she related to the police and to the inquest. Peace, Scott
Author: alex chisholm Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 08:09 pm
Hi Andy While not wishing to pre-empt Stewart�s response, a full report of Packer�s subsequent claims appeared in the Daily Telegraph, 15 Nov. 1888, (and can be found in �The News from Whitechapel� pp. 222-3) as follows: �Mr. Matthew Packer, the fruiterer who sold some grapes to a man in company with the murdered woman just before the Berner-street murder, has made the following extraordinary statement: �On Tuesday evening two men came to my house and bought 12s worth of rabbits of me. They then asked me if I could give an exact description of the man to whom I sold the grapes, and who was supposed to have committed the Berner-street and Mitre-square murders, as they were convinced they knew him and where to find him. In reply to some questions, one of the men then said: �Well, I am sorry to say that I firmly believe it is my own cousin. He is an Englishman by birth, but some time ago he went to America, stayed there a few years, and then came back to London about seven or eight months ago. On his return he came to see me, and his first words were, �Well, Boss, how are you?� He asked me to have some walks out with him, and I did round Commercial-street and Whitechapel. I found that he was very much altered on his return, for he was thorough harem scarem. We met a lot of Whitechapel women, and when we passed them he used to say to me, �Do you see those ---? How do you think we used to serve them where I came from? Why, we used to cut their throats and rip them up. I could rip one of them up and get her inside out in no time.� He said, �We Jack Rippers killed lots of women over there. You will hear of some of it being done over here soon, for I am going to turn a London Jack Ripper.�� The man added �I did not take much notice then of what he said as he had had a drop of drink, and I thought it was only his swagger and bounce of what he had been doing in America, at some place which he mentioned, but I forget the name; but,� continued the man, �when I heard of the first woman being murdered and stabbed all over I then began to be very uneasy, and to wonder whether he really was carrying out his threats. I did not, however, like to say anything about him, as he is my own cousin. Then, as one murder followed after another, I felt that I could scarcely rest. He is a perfect monster towards women, especially when he has a drop of drink. But in addition to what he said to me about these murders in America, and what was going to be done here, I feel certain it is him, because of the way these Jack Ripper letters which have appeared in the papers begin. They all begin �Dear Boss,� and that is just the way he begins his letters. He calls everybody �Boss� when he speaks to them. I did not want to say anything about him if I could help it, so I wrote to him, but he did not answer my letter. Since this last murder I have felt that I could not remain silent any longer, for at least something ought to be done to put him under restraint.�� Packer states he feels sure the men are speaking the truth, as they seemed very much concerned, and hardly knew what to do in the matter. He knows where to find the men. One is employed at some ironworks and the other at the West India Docks, and the man they allude to lives somewhere in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel The reporter to whom the above statement was made at once sent off a copy of it to the Home Secretary, and also to Sir William Fraser, the Chief Commissioner of the City Police. Sir William Fraser immediately acted on the information, and sent Detective-sergeants White and Mitchell to investigate it. They read the letter to Packer, who said it was true, and then took the detectives to the man�s house. On being questioned by the police he stated where his cousin was generally to be found. It transpired that he is sometimes engaged on the Thames, and late last night a search was, it is said, being made for him upon the river. On inquiring early this morning we were officially informed that the above statement had not led to any satisfactory result.� Best Wishes alex
Author: Stewart P Evans Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 02:55 am
Alex, Thanks for that, this story is, of course, to be found on pages 120-123 of Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 06:04 am
Hi Chris & Stewart, Just shows provincial papers used the stories that appeared in the main newspapers. Matthew Packer certainly seemed to revel in the publicity and certainly knew how to work the press, a 19th century Max Clifford! He also possesed a fantastic memory recalling such a long statement giving all those details! I have just looked up the 1881 census and found him around the corner from Berner Street at, 25 Fairclough Street, aged 50, living with wife Rose aged 49 and widowed stepmother Sarah Packer aged 54. His trade is given as costermonger. A.
Author: Chris Hintzen Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 08:47 am
Hi Scott, I'm just curious how you come to your information. If Maxwell is correct that Mary doesn't associate with people, then how do you explain that Mary took two different people off the street to live with her? How is it Julia Vanturney noticed how she had a suitor in not just Joe Barnett but also in Joe Flemming? How do you explain Mary's trade as a Prostitute, which is a rather Social occupation?(She has to talk with people to earn their clientele.) Or the fact that she had recieved so many flowers from the patrons of the 'Ten Bells' for her funeral?(When none of the other victims recieved anything from the establishment.) And lastly how do you explain Maxwell's own contradiction of her statement?(Maxwell states she knows Mary from the Lodging House. We know Mary didn't stay there so either she was visiting someone, or had a client there. So if see doesn't associate with people, why is she there?) As for the cry of Murder. If the cry came from outside the court, then why is it more people didn't hear it? If the sound came from within the court, there are less ears to hear it. However, if it came from Dorset St. there are many others around who could have heard it. So why is it that ONLY people that reside in the court on the night of the murder hear the cry? Lastly as for Cox's retiscence to speak to police and in court, well she is a prostitute after all. Prostitutes didn't place much faith in the police, especially after the start of the murders.(Even 'Pearly Poll', Tabram's friend, was dodgy with the Police, causing them to search for her SEVERAL times.) But I am curious as to what you believe she held back. Regards, Chris H.
Author: alex chisholm Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 09:42 am
Sorry, Stewart I had a feeling this report was included in one of your books. But there are so many of them, all excellent, and I was just too idle to check. All the Best alex
Author: Scott E. Medine Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 10:11 am
I came to these conclusions by reading the police reports and the inquest transcripts. According to Maxwellâ��s statement, Kelly kept to herself. This is backed by a statement from Mr. McCarthy. McCarthy states that he has seen Kelly intoxicated, however; he further states that when sober Kelly was quiet. This indicates that Maxwell only saw and/or spoke to Kelly when she was sober. So as far as Maxwell knew, Kelly was quiet and kept to herself. Cox stated she went home at 3:00 a.m. and did not leave her apartment again. She stated she did not sleep. She stated she heard nothing not even the cry of Oh Murder. Yet, in the same breath she states that she heard men leaving the court. This indicates she either, fell asleep, left the apartment again or the cry of murder was not close to her apartment. All of this tells me that even though she states she heard nothing after 3:00 a.m., she in fact heard a lot. What did she know, I do not know. The police and the coroner should have pressed her for more information. Prater lives directly above Kelly. Prater states that due to thin walls and floor, she has often heard Kelly walking around and moving about her apartment. She states she hears nothing coming from Kellyâ��s room all night. She hears the cry of Oh Murder approximately 3:30 a.m. and then states it was probably after 4:00 a.m. She further state the cry was suppressed and in one account of the inquest states it came from the court. At no time does she say it specifically comes from Kellyâ��s room. A room directly below hers, a room, where she states, she can hear Kelly moving around in and a room, where she states, in the inquest, she heard no movement of furniture. A room where she hears no sign of a struggle. Lewis states she hears a woman cry loudly, OH MURDER! In the official inquest she states it came from the direction of the apartment occupied by Kelly, but she does not say it specifically came from her apartment. in one account of the inquest she states the cry sounded like it was at her door. These are statements from two separate, independent witnesses, that had the best advantage and could not put the cry coming from the Kelly apartment. In the thousands of statements I have taken as a police officer, people have always been direct when placing a scream or cry of help coming from a particular home. Now, these are the witnesses that had the best advantage. They were the people in the adjacent apartment, the apartment directly above or below the apartment in question, the house across the street or next door. They all said the same thing, which was something along the lines of, the scream came from that house, the gunshot came from that apartment, the woman screaming rape was in that trailer. Based on experience, in all likelihood, the cry of murder came from the court. One can argue that it came from the Kelly apartment but there is no direct evidence placing it there. Peace, Scott
Author: Stewart P Evans Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 11:33 am
Alex, Thanks for that, but I obtained most of the Daily Telegraph reports from you in the first place! Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Monty Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 12:01 pm
Scott, Re digestion. Sorry to go back and on but I just want one last thing clearing up. So the digestion of food bears no relevance to the time of death of a person. Yeah? As for the book, tip me off...you've got me hooked on it. Cheers Mate, Monty
Author: julienonperson Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 12:33 pm
Stewart Evans Hi Stewart, I was fortunate enough to find Letters from Hell on Amazon, Just Loved it. I am now waiting to receive American Serial Killer, I've probable got the name wrong, but heck you know what I mean. Can't wait to receive it. I have pretty well all if not most of your books on Jack and I haven't read one that I didn't love. Great work julie
Author: julienonperson Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 12:38 pm
Alex I just had to take the opportunity to tell you that I love The News from Whitechapel. I am half way through right now, and I find it very well written, lots of great info, and to say the least a very interesting book all round. The way that it has been laid out keeps one's interest. great work. julie
Author: Stewart P Evans Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 01:11 pm
Hi Julie, Thank you very much, I appreciate the comments and it's nice to know that you have enjoyed the books. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Philip C. Dowe Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 01:26 pm
Hi Stewart, A short posting off topic, but I just saw that you had posted here: I started reading Mrs. Cornwall's book for the second time and on page 173 I came across a BIG mistake which nearly made me throw the book in the corner: "Steward P. Evans"! I will chip in with Julies comment. "Letters from Hell" has been on my bedside table ever since I bought it (over six months now). Longer than any Ripper book sofar and still counting! A must for everybody. Thank you and of course Keith for publishing it. Yours, Philip
Author: Dan Norder Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 01:29 pm
Scott, I'll grant you that the cry of "Oh Murder" is ambiguous, but I think you've made quite the jumps in logic when you say that Mary Jane Kelly normally didn't associate with anyone or that Cox was withholding information. McCarthy saying that MJK was "quiet" when she wasn't drinking doesn't mean she didn't associate with anyone. Quiet is a relative term, and doesn't usually indicate social reculsiveness. In this case, he is using it to contrast her behavior sober with her behavior when drunk. We know at least in this case MJK being drunk made her sing loudly for a long time. Quiet in comparison to that could just mean someone who is at normal volumes like everyone else when sober. I have to go with Chris here, we have plenty of evidence showing that she did, in fact, interact with people on a regular basis. Cox may have said she didn't hear anything after three, but then heard someone walking much later, but that doesn't mean she was holding anything back. People giving statements (or just talking in general) give ambiguous information. It sounds to me like she could have fallen asleep and wouldn't have heard anything for a gap of time and then heard things later. Certainly she could have been interviewed more thoroughly, and perhaps she was but we don't know about it. The coroners inquests were all pretty slapdash affairs by modern standards. Certainly there are many more people with much more odd sounding testimony than Cox -- Maxwell, in particular. There's only so much you can read into these reports and still have a solid foundation, and if you are strongly critical of one person's testimony (Cox) it's only logical to expect that same sort of examination in the more serious contradictions and seeming inaccuracies of other witnesses (Maxwell). Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
Author: alex chisholm Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 01:39 pm
Hi Stewart That may be true, but it still doesn�t come close to the wealth of invaluable information you�ve so generously provided to me, and so many others. Hi Julie Thank you very much for your kind comments. They are very much appreciated, and I�m sure Christopher-Michael and Dave would echo my thanks. Best Wishes alex
Author: Stewart P Evans Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 02:48 pm
Philip, Patsy wrote in the front of my copy of her book:- "To Stewart, All the best I know you aren't Steward!" Thanks for the kind comment about my book, I am very pleased you have enjoyed it. Alex, Thank you again, you've been an inspiration for me over the years, Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Scott E. Medine Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 09:33 pm
Jumps in logic? No, its called forensic statement analysis. When using written and oral statement analysis, in this case oral statement analysis, one thing that the examiner looks for is �ambiguious information� as you call it. In law enforcement terms, it is called hedging information. It does not mean the person is lying or is purposely hiding information. It simply means that the person is not recalling all the information. In the case of the suspect, it is the interrogator, in the case of the witness it is the interviewer, who has to help the person along and recall the facts. I would have to say that Cox�s eye movements, more than likely, would have been to the left and up during the interview since she appears to be aurally based. If she were lying her movements would be to the right and up. If Cox would have said �After 1:00 a.m., I heard nothing� and left it at that then she is saying she heard nothing after 1:00 a.m. But after saying that she re-qualified her statement by stating she heard various men moving through the court yard, which would lead ANY SEASONED investigator to think that she actually heard a lot more than nothing. The police should have pursued the line of questioning in a different manner. A possible follow up question would have been, �When you heard the men leaving did you hear what direction they were walking?� Followed by �Were any moving in a group..........were they speaking - - and it doesn�t matter if you distinctly heard their conversation, laughing.� Anything should have been asked that would have opened up her memory. Once she begins talking about the sounds she heard that night then she should have been shifted to telling what she saw in relation to what she heard. �When you heard the men leaving the court, do you remember seeing anything.� She would more than likely have said no, but then she could have been asked, �Where were you in the room at the time you heard the men leaving, what were you doing what were you looking at.� And believe it or not, and most of you won�t, that tactic usually opens up their memories. If she insists she still heard nothing then her feelings are attacked. � I understand how emotional this event is and has become for all those who not only knew Mary but who live in the court. It could have happened to anyone here. But for a woman to die so young and in such as manner as that is horrible. I sympathize with all of you in your loss. I know Mary was a good friend. And we want to do everything in our power to find her murderer..........� That always works, it NEVER fails. I have reduced many people to tears by attacking their feelings. Be they suspect or witness, they all talk. Most people say we are merely putting words into their mouths and/or are reading too much into their words and written statements, but then usually someone is being read their rights at the time also. As for Mary�s quietness, one can argue that it means Mary did not sing, one can also say it means Mary did not break windows, get into arguments, was more apt to attend to her affairs and in general did cause a whole lot of trouble or bring undue attention to themselves. Maxwell also says she saw Mary talking to a man, so Maxwell is not saying that Kelly was a loner. She also knew Mary drank at the Brittania, as she mentioned that in her statement. She also believed Mary was a prostitute. The only thing I will recant is that Maxwell did see Mary drunk. She states in the inquest, � I have seen the deceased in drink but not really drunk.� In terms of interviewing and interrogation, the word really is a weakener. It weakens the persons assertion. �I don�t really drink but I drink beer.� Really is normally used as a justification. What Maxwell is saying is she has seen Kelly under the influence of alcohol. Or as law enforcement officers are taught �under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.� Today, any statement given by a witness or a suspect is taken in their hand. in other words, they write the statement. They only get one chance. Its not home work, they can�t take it home and bring it back. They can�t use pencil, it has to be in pen. This is because every little scratch out and error is scrutinized. Peace, Scott
Author: Scott E. Medine Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 09:43 pm
Monty, In most circumstances, yes, the digestion of the person has no bearing on the case. For it to be really useful, the time and contents of the last meal have to be known. Digestion can be effected by too many variables. I only mention digestion in the Kelly case because the food is mentioned in the post mortem and I knew people would get wrapped around the gills with it. If you still have the first three chapters I sent you just read over the 7 Deadly Factors again in the Tabram section. I think I mention that digestion is extremely unreliable in time of death estimates. In fact, out of 150+ homicides, my partner and I have only used it once and that was in conjunction with the Louisiana State University Veteranarian Department. We needed to know the digestion rate for an alligator. Long story....extremely long story. Peace, Scott
Author: Chris Hintzen Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 11:26 am
Hi Scott, I'm sorry but I have to agree with Dan here, you are making 'Jumps in Logic' rather than Forensic analysis. Simply because you are not taking into full account ALL of the evidence. You state that Maxwell may have only seen Mary sober by going along with McCarthy's statements about Mary being 'quiet' while sober, because she states that Mary never associated with anyone. Then later you recant and say that Maxwell must have seen Mary drunk, however this doesn't explain how Maxwell go the opinion of Mary being a bit non-social. We know from McCarthy's statements, the same quote you yourself used, that he had seen Mary intoxicated 'very often' and she was 'noisy when drunk'. So it would be more than likely Maxwell had seen Mary 'in her cups' a majority of the times she had bumped into the Unfortunate Woman. However, Maxwell's own statements pose that she thought it rather odd to see Mary associating with someone. This would be rather puzzling now wouldn't it? Something most people overlook, is the fact that Maxwell hadn't seen Mary for some three weeks prior to her sighting of Mary on the 9th.(When Mary obviously would still be about the neighborhood plying her trade, especially with Barnett gone.) So how is Maxwell so mistaken about Mary? Perhaps it's because she didn't know Mary very well, which Maxwell herself admits? And possibly, this is conjecture of course, the person Maxwell spotted was not Mary Kelly, but possibly someone else who Maxwell believed was Mary Kelly? It could be as simple as chalking everything up to Mistaken Identity.(Happens all the time. Especially when there is so much evidence against Maxwell knowing Mary very well. And I'm sure your work would lead you to believe that eyewitness testimony is often flawed.) Next lets move on to Cox's testimony. You state that there should have been many questions on 'where did it sound like these individuals were going in the court' or 'what were you seeing, when you heard this noises'. However, you overlooked evidence that these questions were probably asked. Cox states in the official transcripts of the inquest, that she heard people 'going in and out, several go in and out', and even one 'go out around 6 a.m.', and that she didn't know what door the person left out of, because 'she heard no door shut'. We don't know the actually questions asked, however this would seem that she did attempt to explain where the noises were from to the best of her knowledge. Also she states that the person 'did not pass my window', which would show that Mary was looking at the window when she heard the noise at 6 a.m.. Another piece of information being overlooked is that Cox lived at Number 5 Miller's Court. Which would have placed her on the far end of the court from Number 13.(Her own evidence places her home at the 'last house at the top of the court', which places her further away from Number 13 than any of the other witnesses.) This would also give her an obstructed view of the area around Number 13. So it is MORE than possible that if a scream came from INSIDE Number 13 then Cox would not have heard it. However, if the scream came from INSIDE the court, then Cox would more than likely have heard it.(As well as possibly others living in the Court.) Now let's move onto Prater's and Lewis's statements. Prater's statments about Kelly moving about in the room is taken out of context. What Prater actually states is, 'On the stairs I could see a glimmer through the partition if there had been light in the deceased room. I might not have noticed it. I did not take particular notice, I could have heard her moving if she had moved.' This could be taken that the partition between Mary's room and the Stairway was rather thin.(Since she would be able to see a glimmer of light from Mary's room.) This would also mean how she could hear Mary moving in the room, but that's if Prater is in the Stairway, not exactly if Prater is in her own room. As you state Prater said the cry was a bit muffled. Well obviously it would be to her. She would hear the scream through the floor.(If you've ever heard anyone talking through a wall or a floor, even if loudly it is rather muffled.) Also you forget that Prater was just awaken by the kitten running over her. So her head is already a bit befuddled, which would help explain her being a bit mistaken as to the time, and to exactly how many, and where the screams came from. Now to Lewis. Lewis states she had dozed quite a few times during the night, again giving a bit of a befuddled state. However, she is sure that she heard a clearly distinctive cry of 'Murder' coming from around Mary's apartment. The Keyler's are at Number 2 Miller's Court. Venturney, who's statements place her directly across from Number 13, lived at Number 1.(And asleep at the time, which would explain why she heard nothing. So long as she was a 'sound sleeper', of course.) Meaning the Keyler's were diagonal to Mary's Apartment. Lewis's statements place her next to the window, which looks into the court, and again is directly diagonal from the broken window of Mary's room. As I'm sure you are aware of, glass typically does not muffle sound. And when taken in account that any cries coming from Number 13 would have very little barrier to stifle it due to the broken panes of glass, this helps Lewis hear the cry a bit more clearly than Prater. Now of course Lewis knows that the cry COULD NOT have come from right outside the door, simply because she is sitting BY THE WINDOW LOOKING INTO THE COURT! So if the cry came from inside the court, or by the door, Lewis would have seen who it came from. Yet you over look this. Lastly the piece of medical evidence that you overlook time and time again, which is MOST important in determining time of death, is the body temperature at time of examination.(Which I'm sure you would agree is rather reliable.) Bond places the time of his examination on Kelly at 2 p.m., and states that the body is 'comparatively-cold'. Comparative to what? More than likely the ambient temperature. And since he states that the body is 'cold' and NOT 'cool' it was rather chilly at 2 p.m. that day. Probably around 70 Degrees give or take a degree or two.(Which I believe can be gleaned from weather statements for that day.) Meaning Kelly's body is pretty close to 70 Degrees.(Unfortunately we can't be fully accurate because a temperature couldn't be taken, since both her liver and rectum were exposed.) So let's say that Kelly's starting temperature was 95 Degrees.(A little cool, but I'm giving a bit of leeway.) So if she died at 9 a.m. she has to drop around 25 degrees in 5 hours. But wait, we have a fire burning for at least that first hour, so even though her body would cool faster due to the extent of the mutilations, which is why I was stating earlier that Rigor would be a little slower in Mary's case, some of the cooling would be slowed for that hour. But let's overlook the fire. This would place Kelly dropping 5 Degrees an hour. And as a medical man I'm sure you know that on average a dead body cools at about 2.5 Degrees and hour. Now due to the extent of the mutilations she would cool faster, but NOT at TWICE the norm.(And since we know it wasn't freezing in the room, and that Kelly wasn't found in a body of water, it's more of an IMPOSSIBILITY that her body could have cooled that rapidly.) Bond himself knowing this, states that Kelly died around 12 hours before his examination at 2 a.m.(Which would allow the body to cool 30 Degrees at a normal 2.5 Degrees an hour.) However this isn't a firm time, because Dr. Phillips(our Second Opinion) places time of death at about 5 to 6 a.m.(Going by the average 2.5 Degrees an hour is about 22.5 Degrees and 20 Degrees respectively.) As stated above, obviously the body would cool faster due to the extent of the mutilations.(Most of which either exposes the muscle tissue or removes it entirely around the joints of the victim, again why Rigor would be a little slower in this case.) However, it wouldn't be much more than a degree an hour, if even that.(I.E. 3.5 Degrees of Cooling per hour.) Yet this is MORE than sufficient to allow Rigor to continue through 12 to 14 hours later.(On Average Rigor stops between 6 to 10 hours after it has started, yet this isn't an average case I'm sure you would agree.) However, as we both agree Rigor is a bit unreliable.(Especially in a case such as this.) Given this evidence how does one come up with Kelly being killed at around 9 a.m. to 10 a.m.? Perhaps you have some other medical evidence that you would give us that will help close in on that later date. Because without it, I'm sorry but I have to go with a time closer to Dr. Bond's Time of Death.(I even have a 'Second Opinion' in Phillips. ;) ) Regards, Chris H.
Author: Richard P. Dewar Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 12:51 am
Hi Chris, Thanks for your post. It makes a lot of sense. In one area, I think you are mistaken. You estimated the temperature to be 70 degrees at 2pm. The weather report for the day recorded on this website I believe states the high that day to be in the mid 40s. . .the low in the mid 30s. I am not a medical expert - I don't know what that would do to the estimate of the time of death. Nonetheless, I am with you in my doubts about Scott's dismissal of the testimony of Cox, Prater, and Lewis while accepting that of Maxwell. Regards, Rich
Author: Diana Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 08:48 am
Chris also opened up another issue which I have not paid sufficient attention to and that is the placement of all those apartments and rooms. What exactly was the layout of Miller's Court? How big was it? (exact dimensions) How many floors did each building have? Was there a public sink anywhere near or in the court? Where exactly was it? It would help me to see a diagram of the court showing exactly what buildings were present, how they were placed, and the location of each witness when they heard what they heard. I confess that my ideas about this are very vague.
Author: Chris Hintzen Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 09:47 am
Hi All, Actually I may have made an error on my previous statement regarding Lewis looking out the window as the scream is heard. In my copy of The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion(Sourcebook), in Lewis's statement to Police there is the sentence 'I did not look out AT the window.' Now this might be a Typo that Messer.'s Evans and Skinner made and the phrase might actually be 'I did not look out OF the window.' If it's not a typo, then I took the phrase to mean that what Lewis was stating that she looked out the Keyler's window but not at Kelly's window.(Which I believe may be the mistake. However, we do know from Lewis's statements that the chair she was sleeping in was next to the window.) Perhaps Stewart might be so kind as to let us know if there was a Typo in his most excellent guide? However, given all the other information, positions of the witnesses in the Court and how sounds travel through different Mediums, I still state that the scream being heard must have come from at least a room in the Court and not from the interior of the Court itself.(If it had been in the Court more people would have heard it, such as Mary Ann Cox.) And due to the statements we have it's MORE than LIKELY that the room the scream originated from was Number 13. Hi Rich, Actually last time I heard it was around 30 Degrees to 40 Degrees the night before, but the highs were about 58 Degrees that day.(I'm not entirely sure who it was that gave us these temperatures. Perhaps the always knowing Viper or Chris George?) The reason I gave the 70 Degree estimate is that Kelly is in a room. So some heat would be retained in there, eventhough one of the windows is broken. But like I said, this isn't a fully precise measurement.(We'd need the actual weather temperatures for that day, and even then we'd be a little off on guessing the ambient temperature in the room. However, if the fire burned closer to the time of examination the room is warmer, and the body cools a bit slower.) Hi Diana, For a diagram of Miller's Court take a look at this link to Viper's excellent dissertation on the make-up of Dorset Street and Miller's Court on the Casebook Site: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-viperdossier.html As for the exact dimensions of the Court is it hard to say.(Viper might possibly know the answer, he is extremely knowledgable when it comes to things like that.) I believe there were only two stories on all the buildings in the court. The water pump was the closet thing they had to a sink.(However it was quite visible by anyone who lived in the center of the court.(I.E. Prater, The Keylers, Venturney, etc.)) Looking at the Diagram, the one rectangle directly west of Mary's room, and next to the lamp, was Venturney's room. The room above Venturney's was the Keyler's. There is some discrpency as to whether Cox lived in the last room on the Western side of that narrow walkway, or on the Eastern side.(I believe the last consensus placed her on the Western side. However, we do know, by her own statements, that Cox did live at the far end of the court.) And it's been generally accepted that the dustbin was of the relative size in Sugden's book. I believe that the box in Tully's book was supposed to be a shed of some type. If it was, it didn't exist in 1888. Hopefully this helps. Regards, Chris H. P.S. One thing I myself would like to see is a Map of Dorset St. with the houses numbered. Dorset seemed to be numbered rather oddly. McCarthy's shop was Number 27, while the shed in front of Mary's room was Number 26. Crossingham's Lodging House across the street was Number 35. Yet further along the street, near the center of the street and on the same side of it as Miller's Court, is the Blue Coat Boy Pub which is Number 32. Perhaps Viper might be able to help us out with this a bit?(I'm particularly interested as to where was Maxwell's home Number 14 Dorset, relative to Miller's Court.)
Author: Scott E. Medine Monday, 03 February 2003 - 10:59 am
As usual, you are wrong on several accounts Chris. I have to seriously question your forensic sources, the rate the body cools is not 2.5 degrees an hour but rather 1 to 1.5 degrees an hour, and this is under normal conditions. A little thing about body temperatures that students of the crime need to be aware of is that strangulation or drowning raises the body temperature. We can estimate the body temperature of Kelly all we want but the truth is that even with the exact temperature taken at the scene by Bond it would still not be enough to place time of death. Next to digestion, body temperature is the most affected factor. Time of death can be quickly established by temperature but key factors affecting it are sickness, the known average body temperature of the person during life, actions prior to death, cause of death, environment and diet. Just because the liver and rectum are missing does not mean the temperature can be taken. A thermometer placed into the muscle can give just as accurate a reading. I could not tell you whether or this was known to medical personnel at the time. So, no, I do not agree that algor mortis is reliable. In fact, of the three, algor mortis, livor mortis and rigor mortis, rigor mortis is usually the best indicator. Without an actual temperature reading, algor mortis is a moot subject. In regards to rigor mortis, you keep confusing body cooling for environmental temperature. In some cases, the faster the body cools the faster the onset of rigor. The more damaged the bodies the faster the onset. The temperature, ambient air temperature, affects the body but muscle cooling is what promotes the chemical process needed for rigor mortis. This is not to say that rapid cooling of a body due to being outdoors in Alaska will not affect rigor mortis, but we are talking about an extreme condition. August in Louisiana is an extreme condition and sometimes bodies by pass rigor altogether and proceed straight into putrification. As or Maxwell, I believe that Maxwell could not have known Kelly all that well; I never disputed that. Maxwell did in fact see Kelly drunk, as her statement infers, however; I believe that Maxwell knew Kelly in a different way and her impression was that Kelly kept to herself. We also have to ponder the consideration that like other statements given at the other inquests or to the police, people do not wish to speak ill of the dead, just as some people today. But she knew Kelly, she hints at knowing Kelly was a prostitute, she saw Kelly drunk and she stated she saw Kelly talking to man. So, its not so puzzling after all, in fact the puzzling part, which I find to be the bigger clue that no one addresses - - who is the man Maxwell saw Kelly talking to. If this man exists, then who is he and where was he after the all inquiries? I am not a medical man, I am a former homicide detective and the former head of the cold case homicide unit. I have worked 152 homicides in my career. So, as far as witness statements are concerned, I take it as an insult when a computer tech or anyone who had never questioned a witness, lectures me about witness statements. I taught witness interviewing and interrogation at the police academy. I have also taught kinesic interviewing to detectives. So, I, above every one else, know that witness observations are questionable. This is why we have witnesses write out their observations in their own hand. In most cold cases, there will not be any statements written in long hand by the witness. Therefore, we have to rely on police notes, media reports and other sources. This means we analyze the statements word by word. It has been my experience, to include a 75 year old homicide investigation, that aurally based witnesses, with the best advantage, can always pin point the exact spot they heard a scream, gun shot or other noise. Cox, Prater and Lewis are all aural based witness. Maxwell is a visual based witness. I read the Cox statement, I know she stated she heard people moving about in the court, she gave a time, no one walked past her window. I just merely gave example of how to open her up for more information. Or more correctly, techniques that would be used today to open her up. The FACT remains the same, she knew more than she spoke of. This not to be taken as she purposely hid or withheld information. Prater states at the inquest that she heard no furniture moving about. In fact she answers - - none whatever. I went asleep and was awake again at 5 a.m. This indicates that she can hear Mary in her apartment quite well. She did not say - - I could not have heard.... I would not have heard - - she stated she heard no movement of furniture. If she could hear furniture moving then she would hear a struggle. She heard a cry of OH MURDER, but no struggle. She can not pin point the source of the cry. If you have ever had the pleasure of visiting the projects at night then you will know that sound travels farther at night and that court yards hold in the sound thus making it easier to pinpoint sounds. But then I am sure you are not accustomed to pin pointing gun fire and screams in the night. In open areas, sound dissipates faster and is harder to pin point. In fact hereâ��s a question ...Why does sound travel farther at night? Again, Lewis can not place the cry of OH MURDER coming from Kellyâ�� apartment. By the way you stated; We don't know the actually questions asked, however this would seem that she did attempt to explain where the noises were from to the best of her knowledge. What you are saying is that We do not choose to know the actual questions asked. What you mean to say is; We can not know the actual questions asked or that it is not possible to know the actual questions asked. People routinely misuse the words do not and can not. The misuse of the word is enough to cause a detective to detain a person a little longer than necessary. you also open and close with Iâ��m sorry , but.... But is a hedge word, you placing a condition on your statement. It negates the Iâ��m sorry part leaving you not sorry, which is no matter, because there is nothing to be sorry about. You also say in closing that - - you have to go with- - when a person says go, they are placing distance between them and the subject. It means that you are removing yourself from any arguments contrary to your beliefs and that you do not wish to consider them. If this is not true, then what you mean to say is; at this point I have to agree with Dr. bond. It is interesting to note that you used the verb agree in your opening sentence. Peace, Scott
Author: Richard P. Dewar Monday, 03 February 2003 - 09:12 pm
Scott, "I, above every one, know. . ."? You may not like that Chris, as a computer technician, dares disagree with you, reportedly a former police officer, about your interpretation of witness interviews. It should be noted, however, that Chris's position can be found in books on the case - some of which were written by former police officers (Donald Rumbelow, Stewart Evans). Mr. Rumbelow and Mr. Evans have advised us all of their experience on the police force. Since you claim to be an expert, may we be provided information about your background of police service - the department, the years, the notable cases, when you taught, and, most importantly, where I could find information on your work? I could find nothing on line about any investigative agency known as The Artemis Group. I would like to read about your career since, part of your argument in defense of your position, is your record as a police officer. Regards, Rich
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 03 February 2003 - 10:11 pm
Dear Scott, Interesting that you pickup on the "furniture" question. The police were of the opinion that, sometime that evening/night the furniture (bed and table) had been moved from where a previous witness stated the furniture had been that very day.One can understand how the table might be shifted about...but, I think, the police were convinced that both the bed and the table (and other item?) had been moved to their final positions POST MORTEM. Hence the question being put to Prater at the inquest. Whats your take on this aspect? Rosey :-)
Author: Vila Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 12:33 am
Scott, I respectfully request that you provide Richard the troll with the information he requests, since he is obviously too stupid to click on your profile and read the entries there. Or any of your past posts wherein you have detailed your training, work history, and qualifications. Its odd, but he nit-picks so much about other things that have been on the casebook for years, but when it comes down to the qualifications of real experts, Rich seems unable to remember past posts with any clarity. I beg your forgiveness for asking you to repeat your past posts, but in this case, the troll seems to have selective amnesia. Vila
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 09:06 am
1. New Orleans Police Academy 220 hrs 1990 2. Intoxilyzer 5000 course Louisiana State Police 8 hrs 1990 3. Advanced Traffic Accident Investigation Louisiana State Police 80 hrs. 1992 4. NLEI Street Gangs Course New Orleans, Louisiana 24 hrs 1993 5. Interview and Interrogation Techniques Gulf Coast law Enforcement Training Center 80 hrs. 1993 6. Basic Arson Investigation Louisiana State Fire Marshall 40 hrs 1995 7. Kinesic Interviewing and interpretation LSU/UNC Chapel Hill 40 hrs 1995 8. Advanced Arson Investigation Techniques Louisiana State Fire Marshall 40 hrs 1995 9. Advanced Kinesic Interviewing and Interrogation Louisiana State University 40 hrs. 1996 10. FBI Sexual Predator Profiling FBI Academy Quantico, Virginia 80 hrs 1996 11. Fire Science; Cause and Origin 40 hrs Louisiana State Fire Marshall 1997 12. NLEI Gang Crimes Investigation Course Houston, Texas 24 hrs 1997 13. Crime Scene Analysis and Profiling LSU 80 hrs 1997 14. Blood Splatter Analysis LSU 40 hrs 1997 15. Handling the Irate Citizen Baton Rouge, Louisiana 8 hrs 1998 16. Advanced Crime Scene Profiling Louisiana State Police 40 hrs 1998 17. Aerko International Freeze Plus P Instructor Course (Chemical Agent) 40 hrs Zachary, Louisiana 1998 18. Kinesic Interviewing Practices Louisiana State Police 80 hrs. 1998 19. Traffic Accident Reconstruction Northwestern University 160 hrs. 2001 20. Investigation of Water Related Deaths University of Georgia 24 hrs. 2002 Experience: New Orleans Police Department 1990-2000 Uniform patrol officer 1990-1992 General Patrol Duties. Police Sergeant 1993-1998 Shift Supervisor: â�¢ Responsible for the maintenance and accountability of all department issued property and a 5 person detective squad. Training Officer: Responsible for the training of new patrol personnel before and after the training academy. Instructed new personnel in â�¢ The use of force. â�¢ Field note taking and interviewing. â�¢ Handling of crime scenes. â�¢ Conducting traffic stops. â�¢ State criminal statutes and city ordinances. â�¢ Dealing with the public. â�¢ Basic investigation methods and procedures to include the handling of evidence and crime scene preservation. â�¢ Department procedures and SOP. â�¢ Traffic accident investigation and speed calculations. â�¢ Developed the speed calculator and time of death calculator for department personnel. Chemical Agent Officer: â�¢ Responsible for the training department personnel in the use of chemical agents â�¢ Assisted in developing chemical weapon training manual â�¢ Maintained training records â�¢ Monitored the use of chemical agent by department personnel â�¢ Advised department administrators in the proper placement of chemical weapons in the department force continuum Gang Intelligence Officer: â�¢ Assisted Plaquemine police Department Personnel in identifying gang members indigenous to Plaquemine La. â�¢ Assisted Plaquemine Police Department Personnel in identifying gang members traveling through Plaquemine and contacting gang officers in proper jurisdiction of gang movement Wrote A Study of Gang Activity in Plaquemine 1997 A copy of which was read by FBI, ATF and State law enforcement officials. A copy of which was also read and quoted by Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freech. â�¢ Maintained detailed intelligence files on New Orleans gang members â�¢ Conducted investigations into gang related crimes; homicide, assault, theft, burglary and narcotics â�¢ Interrogated gang members suspected in crimes; homicide, assaults, narcotics, theft, burglar. Acquired government grants for the start of New Orleans Police Gang Unit C.R.A.S.H (Community Resources Awareness and Special Help) Police Investigator: â�¢ Assisted the New Orleans Fire Department in fire investigations to determine cause and origin â�¢ Conducted homicide investigations. â�¢ Prepared and executed search and arrest warrants. â�¢ Gathered evidence and examined evidence. 1) Blood Spatter 2) Fingerprint Evidence 3) Ballistic Evidence The Artemis Corporation : Private Investigator- Owner â�¢ Kassie Federer, Homicide (Cold Case) Baton Rouge, Louisiana featured on America's Most Wanted â�¢ Ann Bryan, Homicide (Cold Case) Baton Rouge, Louisiana â�¢ Hardee Schmidt, Homicide (Cold Case) Baton Rouge, Louisiana â�¢ Donna Dooley, Homicide/Missing Persons (Cold Case) Baton Rouge, Louisiana â�¢ Jon Benet Ramsey, Homicide Investigation, Atlanta Georgia and Boulder Colorado. â�¢ Walter Rheems, Criminal Defense and Police Excessive Force Investigation â�¢ Conducted personal injury investigations, to include taking and analyzing witness statements and having metal prepared for stress testing. â�¢ Assisted trial lawyers with kinesic analysis of jurors and witnesses in trials and depositions. â�¢ Assisted attorneys in interviewing witnesses and clients and written statement analysis. â�¢ Investigated and reconstructed traffic accidents and testified as expert witness â�¢ Court certified expert on witness interviewing, suspect interrogation and written and oral statement analysis â�¢ Managed a business budget, handled all bookkeeping, met with and secured clients. Scott and Wells Law Firm: Private Investigator â�¢ Conducted witness interviews and prepare affidavits. â�¢ Conducted criminal defense investigations. â�¢ Conducted back ground and asset checks of businesses and individuals. â�¢ Locate defendants and witnesses. â�¢ Conduct public document research. â�¢ Investigated and reconstructed traffic accidents and testified as expert witness. â�¢ Conducted initial client interviews and secured new clients. â�¢ Served as special process server. â�¢ Served witness subpeonas. â�¢ Prepared Motions for Service by Publication. â�¢ Prepared Motions for Special Process Server. â�¢ Notary Public - Expires 25 April 2005 Publications A Study of Gang Activity in Plaquemine Louisiana Classified Department Intelligence Study 1996 Collecting Trace Evidence in Drive-By Shootings Chief of Police Magazine 1998 The Legal Aspects of Mitochondrial DNA Ripperologist 2003
Author: Richard P. Dewar Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 09:14 am
Vila, Scott has said that he was a homicide investigator with the New Orleans Police Department, that he investigated over one hundred murders, and that he trained detectives. I am aware of his posts - I am unaware of any articles or public records by or about him. He has repeatedly stated, as he did in his last post, that he "know above everyone" and resents being questioned by a "computer technician." He is holding himself out as an expert. Therefore, I think it reasonable that I be able to read about his career in assessing his expertise (as you know, Ripper experts Donald Rumbelow and Stewart Evans have given us all the information about their careers). I attempted to look up records on Scott's police and investigative career - via the internet, the telephone (New Orleans PD and City Hall), etc. I have thus far found nothing. Let me make clear - I am not suggesting Scott is lying. I would like to read about his work. He suggests his expertise makes his opinion more worthy than a "computer technician." So, I'd like to read about such expertise - what was the quality of our good detective's work. What I am asking is for information on the public record about his career so we can all judge for ourselves the worthiness of his position when he suggests his views should not be questioned because he is a former police officer and currently a private investigator. Thanks, Rich
Author: Scott E. Medine Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 09:45 am
Vila, No, problem. I saw the message when I got to work this morning. I apologize to everyone for the screwy looking format. I just copied and pasted my CV and I can not figure out why my computer does funky things with bullets and things such as apostrophes. I do not know why my computer does half the things it does.....I just agree with it. Kinda like my wife. Anyway, Rich, I have no problem with disagreement. I welcome debate, but the insulting tone of Chrisâ�� message in which he starts to lecture me on witness reliability went over the line, but thatâ��s my opinion. As I said I above all know that witnesses can be unreliable and I make my living on what witnesses say verbally and non-verbally. Rosey, I never mentioned the furniture because it would be pure conjecture on my part to suggest the furniture, especially the bed, was moved. I read somewhere that the police thought the furniture was moved but I failed to footnote the source. I had the Kelly photo cleaned up and enlarged. I had a friend of mine who is more experienced with blood spatter examine the photo. He found what appeared to be arterial blood spatter near the knees of Kelly and this could suggest some movement. He feels the movement would have more than likely been the bed and not the body. This is based on the crime scene information we gathered. BEFORE ANYONE JUMPS TO ANY CONCLUSIONS, He further stated that the photograph is a copy of a copy of a copy of a......... and that presents numerous problems first and foremost the blood spatter may not be a blood spatter but mildew on the wall, a coffee stain from, damage to the original picture or anyone of the copies used in its reproduction. We would have to be able to determine if the actual photograph has the same spatter pattern and then measurements would have to be taken. Of course the measurements would have to be taken on the actual scene or a 3D replication of the scene. I think there may be computer technology that can give us a 3D, rotational view of the Kelly crime scene. I have been told that aeronautical engineers can scan a blue print of a plane and get a 3D rotational view of the actual plane. I do know that traffic reconstructionist can plot coordinates into a computer and get a 3D rotational topographical relief of an accident scene. As I said, I do not know for sure if the technology is available to do this or what it would take. It seems if the technology exists it would need some measurements as a basis. Another thing to consider is the cost. If this is available then I am sure the cost is astronomical and I am not Patricia Cornwall. Peace, Scott
Author: Terry "Dont call me Hulk" Hogan Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 12:03 pm
A decent CAD program can create a 3D representation of the Kelly crime scene, but without accurate measurements of each object it represented it would be a novelty at best. TH
Author: Monty Monday, 10 February 2003 - 12:02 pm
Scott, BOOK..BOOK...BOOK...BOOK...BOOK...just a hint. If these boards go mail me the outcome..I WANT TO KNOW !! Rich P, I think your request was a decent one. I hope the apology is just as decent. "Let me make clear - I am not suggesting Scott is lying." Thats exactly what your suggesting..not saying granted..but you where suggesting. Monty
Author: richard nunweek Monday, 10 February 2003 - 12:39 pm
Hi everyone, I have made comments on these boards before about George Hutchinsons statement and Caroline Maxwells statement having something in common. If I am right on my assumptions it would suggest to me that Maxwells account of seeing Kelly that morning was true. However when I have made these comments nobody remembers Mrs maxwell stating ; Her eyes looked queer as she was suffering from a heavy cold; So does anyone out there , mayby Viper remember seeing that phrase from her mentioned in the press or statements, or could that statement have gone missing many years back. I am confussed as I believe Mcormack, mentioned ;all muffed up like a cold; and although some posters have said no I believe Leonard matters mentions the cold description. All the above points would have significance If Mrs Maxwell said something of that nature to either the press or police. Hope somebody reading this can end my frustration. Regards Richard.
Author: Monty Tuesday, 11 February 2003 - 11:25 am
Rich P, Re my post of yesterday... ....Im sorry man. Totally unfair, unfair and just down right wrong & unfair ! Forgive me ! Monty

Add a Message