Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

I read it first time Pierre. Makes no sense at all. Why could Mary not have had a fire going in her room that morning? Who would have cared?

[Columbo]

I read it first time Pierre. Makes no sense at all. Why could Mary not have had a fire going in her room that morning? Who would have cared?

I doubt anyone would care if she had a fire going, What was burning in the fire is what makes it suspect. I can't imagine she would create a blazing fire with clothes and a hat and one that was so hot it melted a teapot. I think it's safe to say the killer did it not only to see what he was doing but to also keep warm.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Today, Columbo, we know (although perhaps you don't) that it was not possible for doctors to estimate an accurate time of death (although you should be aware that there was no estimate as to the time of death brought out in evidence at the inquest) so that, on the medical evidence, Kelly could have been murdered after 9:00am on the Friday.

As for how Mrs Maxwell's account differs from the known facts brought out at the inquest of any other witnesses, I suggest you are wrong. But if you disagree please tell me what witnesses and what facts you are referring to.

It's possible she was killed after 9a if the killer was very quick and careful not to get blood on him which undoubtedly he must of.

But if looking at the big picture of Hutchinson, the screams at night, the bizarre, blazing fire and the fact that she wasn't seen by Catherine Pickett, who was looking for Mary specifically that morning, not to mention it probably took more than an hour to carve her up and JTR had to get it out without being seen, it makes Maxwell's account very unlikely.

I can't say it couldn't of happened that way, just seems likely Maxwell was mistaken.

Columbo

[Pierre]

I read it first time Pierre. Makes no sense at all. Why could Mary not have had a fire going in her room that morning? Who would have cared?

Because it was not Mary´s fire. She could not afford to burn clothes.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

It's possible she was killed after 9a if the killer was very quick and careful not to get blood on him which undoubtedly he must of.

But if looking at the big picture of Hutchinson, the screams at night, the bizarre, blazing fire and the fact that she wasn't seen by Catherine Pickett, who was looking for Mary specifically that morning, not to mention it probably took more than an hour to carve her up and JTR had to get it out without being seen, it makes Maxwell's account very unlikely.

I can't say it couldn't of happened that way, just seems likely Maxwell was mistaken.

Columbo

Hi Columbo,

I have not heard about Pickett before. Do you perhaps know any newspaper source for her statement?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Columbo]

Hi Columbo,

I have not heard about Pickett before. Do you perhaps know any newspaper source for her statement?

Kind regards, Pierre

Morning Advertiser (London)
12 November 1888

She's actually listed as Pichell in the article. I don't know how that evolved into Pickett. I know it's a newspaper but it is what it is.

Columbo

[Columbo]

What is absolutely fascinating is this subject has another thread from years ago on these forums which is very well written and detailed by the participants. They also debated Maxwell's story.

Columbo

[Pierre]

Morning Advertiser (London)
12 November 1888

She's actually listed as Pichell in the article. I don't know how that evolved into Pickett. I know it's a newspaper but it is what it is.

Columbo

Great, thanks!

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Because it was not Mary´s fire. She could not afford to burn clothes.

Hello Major Misunderstanding,

Missing the point once again.

When Columbo mentioned the fire (in the post you quoted) he was talking about the impact it would supposedly have had on people walking past Mary's room, apparently announcing that a murder was taking place in that room. My point is that there would have been nothing strange to any passers-by that morning about a fire burning in the room. No-one would have known clothes were being burnt in that fire.

[David Orsam]

But if looking at the big picture

Well let's do that:

1. Hutchinson – Not a witness at the inquest and nothing he said to the police was inconsistent with Mrs Maxwell's evidence.

2. The screams at night – We don't know if this was MJK screaming and Prater's evidence was that such screams were common in the night (and note that she said at the inquest that she heard a single suppressed cry of "Oh Murder" in a faint voice while Sarah Lewis said it was "only one scream").

3. The bizarre, blazing fire – No idea why you describe a fire as bizarre but nothing about it is inconsistent with Mrs Maxwell's evidence.

4. That she wasn’t seen by Catherine Pickett – She was not a witness at the inquest but all her reported account amounts to is that she knocked at MJK's door at 7.30am and there was no reply, something which is entirely consistent with Mrs Maxwell's evidence that MJK was out and about unusually early that morning.

5. "Not to mention that it probably took more than an hour to carve her up" – Well that is your supposition for which there is no evidence but if the murder occurred at 9:00m and the body was not discovered until 10:45 that means there was ample time.

6. "and JTR had to get out without being seen" – As we know, there was a person standing outside Miller's Court all morning with a clipboard recording the comings and goings of all the residents and their guests, especially the prostitutes and their clients.

Your conclusion is "it makes Maxwell's account very unlikely" and that is up to you but all I can say is that there is no evidence which contradicts Mrs Maxwell's and that was the point I was making in my post #365, one which I'm glad to see that you now appear to accept.

[Columbo]

Well let's do that:

1. Hutchinson – Not a witness at the inquest and nothing he said to the police was inconsistent with Mrs Maxwell's evidence.

2. The screams at night – We don't know if this was MJK screaming and Prater's evidence was that such screams were common in the night (and note that she said at the inquest that she heard a single suppressed cry of "Oh Murder" in a faint voice while Sarah Lewis said it was "only one scream").

3. The bizarre, blazing fire – No idea why you describe a fire as bizarre but nothing about it is inconsistent with Mrs Maxwell's evidence.

4. That she wasn’t seen by Catherine Pickett – She was not a witness at the inquest but all her reported account amounts to is that she knocked at MJK's door at 7.30am and there was no reply, something which is entirely consistent with Mrs Maxwell's evidence that MJK was out and about unusually early that morning.

5. "Not to mention that it probably took more than an hour to carve her up" – Well that is your supposition for which there is no evidence but if the murder occurred at 9:00m and the body was not discovered until 10:45 that means there was ample time.

6. "and JTR had to get out without being seen" – As we know, there was a person standing outside Miller's Court all morning with a clipboard recording the comings and goings of all the residents and their guests, especially the prostitutes and their clients.

Your conclusion is "it makes Maxwell's account very unlikely" and that is up to you but all I can say is that there is no evidence which contradicts Mrs Maxwell's and that was the point I was making in my post #365, one which I'm glad to see that you now appear to accept.

There is nothing to directly contradict Maxwell's story, you're absolutely correct and I was inaccurate with my thinking. There is also nothing to corroborate it either, but I guess if you can believe the accuracy of the timeline given it's possible she was killed that morning, just seems unlikely.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

There is also nothing to corroborate it either

Although Mrs Maxwell claimed that Mary told her that she had been "drinking for some days past". This is corroborated to some extent by Mary Ann Cox saying that Mary was "very drunk" when she saw her on the Thursday night.

I would also point out that there is no corroboration that Catherine Pickett (or Pichell) ever knocked on Mary's door at 7.30am but you seemed happy to accept that as true.

[Michael W Richards]

Well let's do that:

1. Hutchinson – Not a witness at the inquest and nothing he said to the police was inconsistent with Mrs Maxwell's evidence.

2. The screams at night – We don't know if this was MJK screaming and Prater's evidence was that such screams were common in the night (and note that she said at the inquest that she heard a single suppressed cry of "Oh Murder" in a faint voice while Sarah Lewis said it was "only one scream").

3. The bizarre, blazing fire – No idea why you describe a fire as bizarre but nothing about it is inconsistent with Mrs Maxwell's evidence.

4. That she wasn’t seen by Catherine Pickett – She was not a witness at the inquest but all her reported account amounts to is that she knocked at MJK's door at 7.30am and there was no reply, something which is entirely consistent with Mrs Maxwell's evidence that MJK was out and about unusually early that morning.

5. "Not to mention that it probably took more than an hour to carve her up" – Well that is your supposition for which there is no evidence but if the murder occurred at 9:00m and the body was not discovered until 10:45 that means there was ample time.

6. "and JTR had to get out without being seen" – As we know, there was a person standing outside Miller's Court all morning with a clipboard recording the comings and goings of all the residents and their guests, especially the prostitutes and their clients.

Your conclusion is "it makes Maxwell's account very unlikely" and that is up to you but all I can say is that there is no evidence which contradicts Mrs Maxwell's and that was the point I was making in my post #365, one which I'm glad to see that you now appear to accept.

The fact that there is no proof Maxwell knew Mary other than extremely casual hellos.... based on only her statement...the fact that she was warned her evidence "differed" from all other evidence as pointed out by the coroner, and the fact that Rigor was present at 1:30, all suggest that anyone taking a prudent approach to investigating this crime would not factor her into the equation at all. Just as the un-vetted Hutchinson statement is soon discarded after it was given...by the 15th.

Presupposing that the killer entered her room after daylight, started a fire, and spent over an hour with his back to the window committing a heinous crime is pretty far fetched. I suppose the Ripper supporters will suggest that he was losing his mind and didn't realize the serious risk in doing such a thing inside a single exit courtyard, but there will always be Ripper people who want to explain away why there are such variances in the crimes, instead of accepting the obvious answer that there were different killers. When you have no obvious motive it doesn't mean there wasnt one. In Marys case the evidence supports that access was granted to the killer. At 4am. Which means she knew him.

Using discredited witnesses as way of supporting another superfluous witness isn't viable. Again, there is nothing in any record that supports Caroline Maxwells statement, and there is nothing in the records that validates her claim she knew Mary, or ever spoke to Mary....let alone on a morning when she is lying dead in her room at the time.

So your claim that nothing contradicts Maxwell isn't accurate really, because nothing in her statement is worthy of belief. Nothing is validated by a second source.

[David Orsam]

So your claim that nothing contradicts Maxwell isn't accurate really, because nothing in her statement is worthy of belief.

That is what is known as a non sequitur. My statement that there was no evidence contradicting the evidence of Mrs Maxwell is entirely accurate.

What is not accurate, however, is your statement that:

"that there is no proof Maxwell knew Mary other than extremely casual hellos."

It's a misrepresentation of the evidence at the inquest. Mrs Maxwell never said anything about "extremely casual hellos". It's come from your imagination and shows that you are not looking at the evidence in an unbiased way.

Equally inaccurate is your reference to:

"the fact that she was warned her evidence "differed" from all other evidence as pointed out by the coroner".

As I have already mentioned, the coroner did not say that her evidence differed from ALL other evidence. You are imagining it. Furthermore, your reliance on this statement is misguided bearing in mind that the coroner must have had the medical evidence in mind when he made this statement but the doctors were not able to accurately estimate a time of death. Had the coroner known this he might well not have issued his "warning".

Then you refer to "the fact that Rigor was present at 1:30". This does not, however, mean that Kelly could not have been murdered between 9 and 10.30am.

Consequently, your suggestion that "anyone taking a prudent approach to investigating this crime would not factor her into the equation" is quite wrong and the very reverse is true. A prudent approach to the investigation must factor her evidence into the equation.

[David Orsam]

Using discredited witnesses as way of supporting another superfluous witness isn't viable. Again, there is nothing in any record that supports Caroline Maxwells statement, and there is nothing in the records that validates her claim she knew Mary, or ever spoke to Mary....let alone on a morning when she is lying dead in her room at the time.

Mrs Maxwell is not a "discredited witness". You say there is nothing in the record that validates her claim that she knew or spoke to Mary but there is nothing in the record that contradicts her claim either.

To say that Mrs Maxwell spoke to Mary at a time when she was "lying dead in her room" when there is no real evidence as to the time that Mary died is only showing that you have a closed mind on this subject.