A Possible Scenario - Or a Tall Tale!

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hey now!

Hi RK

if you want to be dead, why wait near to a pub and talk to people ?

Cheers

That's way too reasonable of a question. Cut it out.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

digressing

Okay, let's say she came home that morning and found the scene. Went tp the street where she was spotted. Then went to get a drink. Understandably so. Ran into Barnett whilst there then decided to bounce. I could go with something of that sort.

[Red Knight]

That's way too reasonable of a question. Cut it out.

Yes - good one!

Maybe - as she was seen by one person only in the bar - she was making an attempt to hide herself or others were shielding her, and it was a passing glimpse only. It seems to nearly have worked. It certainly wasn't like a scene in a western where the piano stops playing, and all eyes turn round as the door opens. I know it's hard to picture, but if one person saw her there, then maybe she was there and we have to somehow work it in because it happened. That's my whole point. But good response - made me chuckle!

Regards
PB

[Sally]

Hi Red,

Splendid first post.

I like some of the things you say, for example the memorable day - Yes, it was indeed the day of the Lord Mayor' Show, a holiday; and such days are in and of themselves memorable.

Then we have not one, but two people claiming to see Kelly - and there appears to be no motive whatever for either of them fabricating their stories; particularly not Morris Lewis.

So what are we left with? Either:

A - One or both witnesses were mistaken as to the day
B - There was a Kelly lookalike living on Dorset Street (or thereabouts) and one or both witnesses mistook the lady.
C: One or both witnesses did see Kelly and she was either killed after that or not at all.

To add fuel to your fire, there is of course the fact that Barnett's common law wife, Louisa, was with him from 1888. So that's either an very fast rebound; a less than truthful account from Barnett as to why he left Kelly; or just possibly....



I don't pretend to know the answers, but it's fun to speculate.

[curious]

To add fuel to your fire, there is of course the fact that Barnett's common law wife, Louisa, was with him from 1888. So that's either an very fast rebound; a less than truthful account from Barnett as to why he left Kelly; or just possibly....



I don't pretend to know the answers, but it's fun to speculate.

sorry changed my mind

curious

[Ben]

A warm welcome to Casebook, PB. Some food for thought here, certainly!

Wickerman wrote:

And that in itself is refreshing, finally we have an hypothesis that does not rely on cherry picking choice witnesses and dismissing the rest as liars, or press creations which "never existed".

But that's how the investigative process works - by assessing the individual worth of witnesses. A investigator who accepts all eyewitness evidence as truthful and accurate regardless of its origin is one who fails in his duty and abandons all common sense. I don't see that PB has done that, and that it is to his credit.

I notice you, quite rightly in my opinion, include the 3:00 am sighting

Where does PB say anything about a "3.00am sighting"

If you're talking about the Kennedy nonsense that appeared in one or two newspapers before sinking predictably without trace, it is to PB's credit that it doesn't feature in his scenario.

All the best,
Ben

[C. F. Leon]

Hi Red,

Splendid first post.

I like some of the things you say, for example the memorable day - Yes, it was indeed the day of the Lord Mayor' Show, a holiday; and such days are in and of themselves memorable.

Then we have not one, but two people claiming to see Kelly - and there appears to be no motive whatever for either of them fabricating their stories; particularly not Morris Lewis.

So what are we left with? Either:

A - One or both witnesses were mistaken as to the day
B - There was a Kelly lookalike living on Dorset Street (or thereabouts) and one or both witnesses mistook the lady.
C: One or both witnesses did see Kelly and she was either killed after that or not at all.

To add fuel to your fire, there is of course the fact that Barnett's common law wife, Louisa, was with him from 1888. So that's either an very fast rebound; a less than truthful account from Barnett as to why he left Kelly; or just possibly....



I don't pretend to know the answers, but it's fun to speculate.

Sally, why do you ASSUME that neither Mrs Maxwell or Mr Lewis had no motive in lying? I quite see that as another possibility and, so it seems, do most of the experts. I wonder if maybe one of the two was a bit 'touched' (to use an older term), and the second ran with the story once they heard it as a Victorian version of a troll.

You do raise an interesting possibility about Barnett's wife, who I had never heard of before. Do we know anything about her?

[C. F. Leon]

One thing that bugs me a bit about the Kelly case is the cry of 'Murder' reported by a couple of witnesses, which make a point that it seems to be low in volume rather than loudly screamed. But we've heard this before in these murders- I recall that one of the residents of George Yard (Tabram murder) mentioned hearing a low cry of "murder", and Schwartz's account of the attack on Liz Stride states that she cried out but not loudly. Why is no one screaming at the top of their lungs and waking up the whole neighborhood in these attacks? Assaults in general may have been common and occur maybe several times a night, but to the individual being attacked, it's a natural instinct to holler 'bloody murder' (to use an ironic phrase). I'm assuming that if these cries ARE related to the murders (whether they are due to Jack or not), the assailant must have quickly strangled/knifed the victims and any outcry they made was basically a death gurgle. As for Stride, she may have been stunned or dazed by the attack on her.

[Supe]

C.F.,

The cry of "murder" reported in the Tabram investigation was told to reporters by the wife of the building superintendent, Frances Hewitt. She said it very definitely came from the street and not indoors and moreover, like shouts were to be heard frequently. How much credence one can put in the Hewitts and their statements that night was neatly summed up in an article several years ago by Tom Wescott when he wrote “As unbelievable as their story was, it would be impossible to prove otherwise, and their word has been taken as granted all these years.”

Don.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Although it seems rather a ''Hitchcock'' type scenario, it should be suggested that the letter penned to the police[ albeit Yarmouth] sent from the very address that Mrs Maxwell lived ..14, Dorset street, exactly one week prior to Kelly's demise, could have a bearing on Maxwell's tale.
I must conclude that a letter stating an address [ right opposite the next murder site] is a major coincidence , its not just a case of the next victim residing there, but of the actual murder location.
I am somewhat surprised that this is not taken more seriously, out of all of the streets/addresses in the Whitechapel/Aldgate area, we have a location , that is not just a few meters from the forthcoming event, but the address of the most talked about witness in the whole Ripper case.
What does this mean if one takes a suspicious view..like yours truly ?
its far to easy to dismiss this as ''well these things happen.''
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Hi C.F.

Sally, why do you ASSUME that neither Mrs Maxwell or Mr Lewis had no motive in lying?

I did? Tsk Tsk...

I quite see that as another possibility and, so it seems, do most of the experts. I wonder if maybe one of the two was a bit 'touched' (to use an older term), and the second ran with the story once they heard it as a Victorian version of a troll.

Hmm. Well, you'll probably have to explain the first bit to me C.F. - why do you think one of the two was 'a bit touched' then? And to which do you refer, out of interest?

Yep, ok - they could've been making it up. If we make that proposition though, we have to do our best to account for it in a logical and sensible way that takes account of the known evidence.

I have, of course, considered this very question a long time ago - as you do when you first become interested in the case. Here's what I suppose to be likely in present evidence:

Luwitz - can't see a reason for him to tell porkies - it doesn't really seem to add up, given the circumstances.

Maxwell - well, since the letter which Richard highlights in his post comes up, I guess there's a whiff of a possibility that she might have had an unknown motive for pretending to see Kelly. Just possibly.

But you've still got to account for Lewis.

A case of mistaken identity? Perhaps, yes.

You do raise an interesting possibility about Barnett's wife, who I had never heard of before. Do we know anything about her?

Ah yes, Louisa Barnett - No.

In the absence of any marriage record (and I know I'm not the only one to have looked) we have no idea who she was before she 'married' Barnett. Barnett's 1911 census entry (made whilst she was in the infirmary) states that they have been married for 23 years and have no children.

Infirmary records show them to be living in the vicinity of Old Gravel Lane from 1897 onwards. Where they were before that, I have yet to discover.

And that's it. Could she have been Mary Kelly? Well, jury's out, but it'd make a great story...

[Bridewell]

Seriously though, you show courage for an introductory post. Others have done a lot worse.
__________________

I second that, Jon and, as Red Knight says, his theory, far-fetched though it may seem, does fit with all the witness statements. (I like your thought about Brymbo Mary btw). The main problem I have with all this is that there is no whisper in any of the surviving documents or press reports of any of MJK's friends mysteriously going missing around the time of her death.

[Bridewell]

Right build, right height, the hair matches, wearing what he knows is MK's clothing, he'd certainly think it was her. As if the body WASN'T MK, then he's either incompetent as a witness, has something to hide, or is in on either or both the murder or her 'disappearance'.

Or he's made a mistake?

[Bridewell]

Is there any evidence that Kelly had intercourse with anyone that night?

One thing I never see in these Victorian inquest reports is a discussion of whether or not the victim had any sign of recent sexual activity. Is it that the technology was not there to detect this, or is it the legendary Victorian social discretion at work?

Eddowes inquest "There were no indications of connexion" (Dr Frederick Gordon Brown).

[Bridewell]

A Kindred Spirit

I feel that the most likely event is Mary Kelly was alive at daybreak, and was seen by Maxwell and possibly Maurice Lewis, but unfortunately met her killer [Maxwell's porter] around 830am.

I'm of the same opinion and surprised that it's one so lightly dismissed when the only evidence which flatly contradicts it is Bond's estimate as to the likely time of death. I think it more likely that Bond's conclusion (based on the onset and progression of rigor mortis) is wrong than that two eye witnesses, who both claim to have known MJK and to have seen her after daybreak, are both mistaken.