I don't think Caroline Maxwell's evidence can be easily discounted. And Walter Dew stated that her reputation was excellent, and I doubt he would have made similar comments about the other witnesses. Of course, it may have been a case of mistaken identity, but why should her evidence be considered less reliable than any other witness?
The main reason to question her evidence is that her alleged sighting is later than than the time of death estimates. However, they should be taken with a pinch of salt. For instance, they ranged over a huge period-1:00am to 6:00am-indicating that the Victorian medicos didn't have a clue.
In fact, we now know that time of death estimates cannot be accuately ascertained, and the advice of the Forensic Science Regulator is that modern forensic pathologists shouldn't even attempt to do so.
As an aside, in the celebrated Wallace murder case of the 1930s Dr McCall, a professor of forensic medicine, initially estimated time of death as 8:00pm. He then inexplicably changed this to 6:00pm, without giving reasons as to why. Interestingly, if this latter estimate is correct then, between 6:30 and 6:45, a witness must have had a conversation with a corpse!
I also don't understand why the coroner cautioned Maxwell that her evidence was different to that of other witnesses. I mean, none of the other witnesses gave supporting evidence, as their alleged sightings were at different times, so in effect everyone's evidence differed.
What are the odds that a letter should have been sent to a police force , with the address of Mrs Maxwell, exactly one week prior to the murder in Millers court, This address was exactly opposite Millers court. and it is tremendous hindsight by someone, [ don't you agree?].
This happened, and resident of that address Mrs Maxwell, became one of the most referred too witness , in the whole Ripper case.
Was this a mere coincidence , or did the puzzle of Millers court lay beyond the door of that establishment?.