A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

Well spotted.

I have been doing some digging into Mary Malcolm who, together with her sister, Elizabeth Stokes, will be the subject of a future article.

It's a fascinating story.

Regards,

Simon

I would be very interested in that story Simon, look forward to it. My gut tells me we may have some human smoke screens here, well see what you find out.

All the best Simon

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Okay.

So why was Mrs Maxwell subpoenaed to appear at the inquest?

Regards,

Simon

I canīt see why the rather obvious implication that Maxwell mistook somebody else for Kelly should lay the burden on me to explain why she was subpoenaed, Simon - I was just making the point that the time issue did not cover the mistaken person bit.
But Maxwell was not the only one opening up for a possibility that Kelly was still alive on the morning of the 9:th, up and about, and maybe the coroner saw the need to acknowledge this anomaly. Moreover, much as many of the witnesses at the inquest were of a - shall we say - morally questionable character, Maxwell was clearly nothing of the sort. Maybe that contributed to it all.

All the best, Simon!
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

Well spotted.

I have been doing some digging into Mary Malcolm who, together with her sister, Elizabeth Stokes, will be the subject of a future article.

It's a fascinating story.

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

Hi folks,

To dRoy, sorry for not responding to your rebuttal earlier;

"I don't see where Cox is saying anything about the door latch. We also don't know if she went out drinking. We know she was drunk yes but maybe she went out looking for clients and got drunk instead (or both). "

The issue of whether the latch was on is dealt with Ms Cox's statement that the man pushed the door open and led Mary inside. Thats why I said we know the latch was on. As for why she went out, it really doesnt matter, her condition upon arrival home and her singing for over an hour does.

"Hassle? Abberline said this at the inquest "Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy."

If you read the context in which I made the remark, that it would be a drunk Mary, not Barnett, reaching through the broken pane, it makes more sense.

To Simon, great information about the lamplighters, perhaps the boots that Cox heard early in the morning were his. On the issue of Maxwell though, one might also ask why Mary Malcolm was allowed to speak... at great length... at the Stride Inquest when they had already ID'd Liz using her close acquaintances, or where Israel Schwartz was if his statement was so trustworthy. There are instances throughout these Inquests where witnesses present statements that contradict the others....for instance Spooner stating that he was summoned to help the 2 men at approximately 12:45 by his accounting for time....or where the Police present someone who wasnt ever called to the Inquest in grand form...Piser.

To ask why some things were done, like the Maxwell incident, is a good question for sure, but why it happened in some cases is beyond me.


Best regards Mr Wood, dRoy, all.

[DRoy]

Simon,

So why was Mrs Maxwell subpoenaed to appear at the inquest?

Good question. Her testimony disputed everyone else's. What value was her testimony? It seems the Coroner didn't believe her, the doctor's evidence differed, and every other witness last saw MJK alive hours and hours earlier. Would or could her testimony sway the juror's opinion in any way at all? Obviously not. So what was the value in having her there? Good question.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

You beat me to it Fisherman!

DRoy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Okay.

So why was Mrs Maxwell subpoenaed to appear at the inquest?

Regards,

Simon

[DRoy]

Hi Simon,

Why should Mrs Maxwell have been confused about the time, day or identity of MJK?

She gave her first witness statement to the cops just a few hours after her encounter, on the afternoon/evening of Friday 9th November.

I don't think she was confused about the time or day but I do believe that the person she knew as Mary was not actually the MJK. In her inquest testimony she only uses the name Mary, not Mary Jane or Mary Kelly, etc. She doesn't say where she lived either, just that she saw Mary outside the court. Surely it could have been a Mary who lived in the vicinity but not necessarily the same Mary of 13 Miller's Court.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Hi DRoy,

Why should Mrs Maxwell have been confused about the time, day or identity of MJK?

She gave her first witness statement to the cops just a few hours after her encounter, on the afternoon/evening of Friday 9th November.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon!

The parameters you mention absolve Maxwell from a mistaken time or day only - for no matter how close in time the meeting was, Maxwell may still have mistaken the identity! Which is what I think the police believed she did.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi DRoy,

Why should Mrs Maxwell have been confused about the time, day or identity of MJK?

She gave her first witness statement to the cops just a few hours after her encounter, on the afternoon/evening of Friday 9th November.

Regards,

Simon

[GregBaron]

A friend indeed...

Hi DRoy,

"Were all lamps lit before dark and then distinguished after sunrise?"

Yes. Apparently it was a procedure which went on into the 1950s.

[ATTACH]15104[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Good find sir, thanks for this. I find it ironic that the lamplighter is named Fairclough, our friend for other reasons...


Greg

[DRoy]

Simon,

Thanks for that, fascinating stuff!

So only if we accept Caroline Maxwell's story would the lamplighter possibly be a witness to anything. I'm leaning towards Maxwell being mistaken as to who she thought MJK was. A case of mistaken identity IMHO.

Cheers
DRoy

[Bridewell]

Indeed not, Bridewell.

I should make clear that I'm not suggesting he wasn't there (I believe Lewis' evidence indicates very strongly that he was). I'm saying simply that it isn't proven, unlike in Packer's case, where it is.

All the best,
Ben

Misunderstood the point you were making, Ben. Apologies for that.

[Ben]

Indeed not, Bridewell.

I should make clear that I'm not suggesting he wasn't there (I believe Lewis' evidence indicates very strongly that he was). I'm saying simply that it isn't proven, unlike in Packer's case, where it is.

All the best,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi DRoy,

"Were all lamps lit before dark and then distinguished after sunrise?"

Yes. Apparently it was a procedure which went on into the 1950s.



Regards,

Simon