Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rose Mylett - Murder or Accidental Death?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    I would disagree, Tom. Both methods can't have been used. You can't use two hands to strangle someone with a ligature and close their mouth at the same time?
    Where does it say they had to have happened at the same moment?

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Comment


    • #17
      Why would both methods be used? Weren't the jury led to believe that the use of a ligature was expertly done in this case-barely leaving a mark, like the expertise shown by 'thugs'

      Comment


      • #18
        Both were suggested as the methods that actually caused Mylett's death.

        Comment


        • #19
          Hi Debs. I won't pretend that I've made my mind up about how Mylett was murdered. I'll need to look at it closer when the time comes. But then that's not the question I posed here. The fact that debate on how she was murdered and the evidence that came from that medical debate renders the argument of accidental death rather weak if not non-existent. Do you agree?

          Yours truly,

          Tom Wescott

          Comment


          • #20
            I wonder if the fact that there are only 9 votes means that most forum readers are say, 'Rose who?'

            Yours truly,

            Tom Wescott

            Comment


            • #21
              Or that there's a lotta lazy people...or people who are on the fence about it, Tom.
              To Join JTR Forums :
              Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

              Comment


              • #22
                I havn't Voted..

                Anderson thought it was an accident.. Seems unlikely

                Tell us more? Do we have a fore and Against advocates?

                Yours Jeff

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                  I havn't Voted..

                  Anderson thought it was an accident.. Seems unlikely

                  Tell us more? Do we have a fore and Against advocates?

                  Yours Jeff
                  Anderson said it was an accident. I wouldn't go so far as to say he actually thought it.

                  Yours truly,

                  Tom Wescott

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    footprints

                    Hello Jeff. But if it were an accident, why no footprints?

                    Cheers.
                    LC

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                      Debs:
                      I'm going with Brownfield's opinions.
                      Absolutely!
                      Regards, Jon S.
                      "
                      The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
                      " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
                      Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                        The fact that debate on how she was murdered and the evidence that came from that medical debate renders the argument of accidental death rather weak if not non-existent. Do you agree?

                        Yours truly,

                        Tom Wescott
                        I don't agree,no.
                        Until Mr Chivers, the mortuary assistant, pointed out the marks on Mylett's neck, no one had suspected a murder-not the police nor attending doctor,Harris. There were no eye witnesses to her last movements and no one in the immediate area heard anything just before she died.
                        All the doctors involved agreed that Mylett died from asphyxia-it was how that occurred that differed.

                        Brownfield believed a line partially around Mylett's neck, was the result of strangulation by ligature. Bond believed the line was the impression left by Mylelt's collar as she lay dying or immediately after death. At no time did Bond say Mylett was strangled by her own collar as some suggest.

                        Bond thought the line was too faint and there wasn't enough damage done to neck tissue for it to have been a ligature mark. Typically, ligature strangulation involves excessive force. Bond must have been correct in his observations as to the faintness of the mark because we see that evidence claiming that 'thug' murderers were capable of strangling with a ligature without leaving a mark at all, was discussed at the inquest. There would be no need for that suggestion at inquest if the mark had been very prominent?

                        What it boiled down to was the medical evidence of Brownfield v Bond. Both believed asphyxia was the cause of death, both saw a faint mark around the neck and put it down to different things. What I find interesting is that although Hebbert never gave any medical evidence at the inquest -writing later for a medical jurisprudence text-he obviously does not agree with Brownfield's 'soap cutter' ligature suggestion either. The one thing that pointed to murder in the first place.

                        Do you see where I'm coming from now?
                        It's a pity that McKellar's thoughts aren't on record.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Hi Debs, thanks for that thoughtful and informative reply. Did these 'faint' marks remain faint or become more pronounced over time? As for the lack of witnesses, surely that would not be surprising if a murder occurred?

                          Clark's Yard would be a good location for a prostitute to take a man, would it not? So it makes sense that Rose would have gone there with someone. But if she died accidentally, she did so alone and without any alcohol near. So what was she doing there?

                          People who asphyxiate due to alcohol typically do so while vomiting, but there's no mention of vomit. So how does a young woman asphyxiate?

                          And while I question why doctors would need a mortuary assistant to point out scratch marks to them, the fact that he does not negate the fact that they were present, and that's precisely what would be expected if she'd been strangled.

                          I haven't studied the case as closely as you have yet, but there's an awful lot of evidence here that she was murdered and nary any evidence to the contrary. At least that I've seen yet.

                          Was Bond from the very beginning of the opinion that she died accidentally?

                          Yours truly,

                          Tom Wescott

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Dr Bond only viewed the body five days after the murder.
                            Regards, Jon S.
                            "
                            The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
                            " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
                            Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                              Hi Debs, thanks for that thoughtful and informative reply. Did these 'faint' marks remain faint or become more pronounced over time? As for the lack of witnesses, surely that would not be surprising if a murder occurred?

                              Clark's Yard would be a good location for a prostitute to take a man, would it not? So it makes sense that Rose would have gone there with someone. But if she died accidentally, she did so alone and without any alcohol near. So what was she doing there?

                              People who asphyxiate due to alcohol typically do so while vomiting, but there's no mention of vomit. So how does a young woman asphyxiate?

                              And while I question why doctors would need a mortuary assistant to point out scratch marks to them, the fact that he does not negate the fact that they were present, and that's precisely what would be expected if she'd been strangled.

                              I haven't studied the case as closely as you have yet, but there's an awful lot of evidence here that she was murdered and nary any evidence to the contrary. At least that I've seen yet.

                              Was Bond from the very beginning of the opinion that she died accidentally?

                              Yours truly,

                              Tom Wescott
                              Hi Tom, don't forget-as well as earning pennies, prostitutes also have to spend them sometimes. Alleyways were useful for both purposes.

                              Mylett was spotted dry retching in the street earlier on in the evening. I don't know if it is connected but it is worth mentioning-perhaps she had been having problems all night? Who knows?

                              I disagree about the evidence available. Murder or accident, all conclusion relies on the medical evidence and the interpretation of the neck marks alone.

                              We also haven't got the full picture of what questions were asked or evidence given at inquest. Something about a post jutting out in the yard was discussed-perhaps that was discussed in the context of an accident happening? It is mentioned only briefly in the inquest reporting, as was the evidence given about 'thug' murders, so we haven't go the full details to asses what that was all about. I think it is Anderson who comments that 'less than expert' (something to that effect) evidence was given by someone at the inquest.

                              Chivers pointed out the 'ligature' mark.

                              As you know, Anderson, writing on events, gives the impression that Bond viewed the body once, reported his findings of a homicidal death and then viewed the body again and changed his mind after he [Anderson] had pressed his concerns about the homicidal aspect in a meeting. Anderson is the only source for this. Bond doesn't mention he viewed the body twice and neither does the coroner, saying that Bond viewed the body 5 days later than the other doctors so was at a disadvantage.The coroner apparently complained about the fact that doctor after doctor was sent to view the body, so it's puzzling why didn't he mention that Bond had been twice.
                              I wonder if maybe Bond made his first conclusions based on Hebbert's notes alone after Hebbert attended the post mortem in Bond's place? Perhaps Anderson wasn't aware this was the case? Just a suggestion of course.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hi Debs. With all that evidence, it's hard for me to understand why you think she died by accident. I also can't understand why you think it comes down to one single point of evidence. Cases rarely come down to one single point of evidence.

                                Yours truly,

                                Tom Wescott

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X