Lechmere versus Richardson.

[Aethelwulf]

Throw in the likelihood that a killer who escaped everyone's notice would risk a murder in daylight with the possibility of being seen by any one of dozens of potential witnesses overlooking the yard and being trapped in those yards.

Cheers, George

Farmer

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a few general questions on the suggestion that the body that was discovered in Miller’s Court wasn’t Kelly.

1) She was known in the area so isn’t it strange to say the least that only 2 people saw her after her death?
2) Coincidences do occur of course but isn’t it a sizeable one that the alternative victim had the same luxurious hair?
3) Even in her condition could Barnett really have mistaken her for someone else?
4) Why didn’t she simply ‘turn up after the body had been discovered? (Unless we enter conspiracy territory of course)
5) As she wasn’t seen in the area she must have a distance away. Not an easy task for the penniless Kelly?

[Trevor Marriott]

A couple obvious points here - you often speak about the reliability of witnesses and that’s fair enough of course but you still take as gospel (or, rely on, to use your own phrase) the memory of Inspector Reid recalling events that occurred 8 years previously. At at a crime scene where body parts and internal organs were left on display around the room which would have been collected and noted by the Doctors. So is it really a great leap that he simply misremembered the heart? We could of course produce a list of errors made by officers thinking back to that time so while I agree that the wording used in relation to Kelly’s heart is ambiguous it can’t exclude the suggestion that the killer had taken away the heart. Especially when we can’t avoid the fact that the Doctor had been at pains to list the locations of the other body parts and organs that had been removed.

Inspctor Reid was the head of Whitechapel CID he attended the crime scene. He would have been repsonsible for reporting directly to Swanson. I stand to be corrected but I dont hink there is any mention by Swanson of the missing heart being taken away

You mention Reid could have misremembered I dont subscribe to that fact. The murder of Kelly was the most horrific of all the murders and so with all the previous occurrences of organs going missing I would have expected the police and the doctors to be extra vigilant in dealing with the kelly murder and assesing whether or not organs were taken.

Following the post mortem and the subsequent revisiting of the room, and not forgetting the pail of what is belived to have been organs that were taken from the crime scene direct to Dr Phillips home address for examination, in the absence of anything to corroborate the ambiguos comment by Dr Brown at the time or therafter there is no reason to reject what Reid said in later years.

As stated i dont buy the misremebering I can speak from experience I can still recall cases and unusual aspects of some of my case going back to the 1970`s and I am sure that the Kelly murder would be one such case that Reid would not have forgotten.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Just a few general questions on the suggestion that the body that was discovered in Miller’s Court wasn’t Kelly.

1) She was known in the area so isn’t it strange to say the least that only 2 people saw her after her death?
2) Coincidences do occur of course but isn’t it a sizeable one that the alternative victim had the same luxurious hair?
3) Even in her condition could Barnett really have mistaken her for someone else?
4) Why didn’t she simply ‘turn up after the body had been discovered? (Unless we enter conspiracy territory of course)
5) As she wasn’t seen in the area she must have a distance away. Not an easy task for the penniless Kelly?

Hi Herlock,

It appears that we are doomed to be forever on the opposite side of the fence on these discussions. I will proffer my views on your questions:

1) I think you meant to ask why only two people were reported as seeing her. As you would be aware, the coroner cut the inquest short with many people's evidence to come which may have cast more light on the possibility that she was seen after her ToD. I recall during our extensive debates on the Stride case you asked the question " Why would they lie?" so I volley that question back over the net for your consideration. A common excuse is that Maxwell and Lewis mixed up the days, but their assertions were being reported on that very afternoon, so that is at best feeble reasoning.

2) and 3) In 1980 when I was 31, my brother was killed crossing the street by a hit and run driver. He died of head injuries. I was asked to identify the body and was unable to look at his devastated remains for more than a few seconds. Besides, I knew who I was there to identify. I believe it would have been the same for Barnett. He said he identified her from eyes and ears, not hair. Who knows how much of her hair would have been visible behind her head and body, and how long he could have endured looking at her tortured remains to make his identification.

4) Consider that she returned to her lodgings on the morning of the murder and discovered that some one who had used her dwelling that night had been brutally murdered. Would not she have feared that the murderer may have been after her, and taken the opportunity to vanish and be presumed dead?

5) I don't know the logistics of how she may have contrived to vanish. I find the Hull Daily Mail article on her return to Pennington St to be curious. Her past prior to Miller St was steeped in mystery, so why not her future?

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Who then vouchers for the Jane Doe in Kellys bed ? She had to be someones? . Also, if she knew MJK well enough to sleep over that night why didnt someone report her missing after kellys murder ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

It appears that we are doomed to be forever on the opposite side of the fence on these discussions. I will proffer my views on your questions:

1) I think you meant to ask why only two people were reported as seeing her. As you would be aware, the coroner cut the inquest short with many people's evidence to come which may have cast more light on the possibility that she was seen after her ToD. I recall during our extensive debates on the Stride case you asked the question " Why would they lie?" so I volley that question back over the net for your consideration. A common excuse is that Maxwell and Lewis mixed up the days, but their assertions were being reported on that very afternoon, so that is at best feeble reasoning.

2) and 3) In 1980 when I was 31, my brother was killed crossing the street by a hit and run driver. He died of head injuries. I was asked to identify the body and was unable to look at his devastated remains for more than a few seconds. Besides, I knew who I was there to identify. I believe it would have been the same for Barnett. He said he identified her from eyes and ears, not hair. Who knows how much of her hair would have been visible behind her head and body, and how long he could have endured looking at her tortured remains to make his identification.

4) Consider that she returned to her lodgings on the morning of the murder and discovered that some one who had used her dwelling that night had been brutally murdered. Would not she have feared that the murderer may have been after her, and taken the opportunity to vanish and be presumed dead?

5) I don't know the logistics of how she may have contrived to vanish. I find the Hull Daily Mail article on her return to Pennington St to be curious. Her past prior to Miller St was steeped in mystery, so why not her future?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

To be honest I’m not adamant on this point point I’d just say that the likelihood favours the body being that of Kelly. It’s not impossible of course that someone could have been staying there (as we know occurred occasionally via Barnett)

1) I agree that Maxwell is probably the most difficult witness to dismiss in the case as simply ‘mistaken.’ The ‘mixed up the days’ suggestion appears weak at best as you say and of course Maxwell claimed to have had a short face to face conversation with Kelly (a person that she knew) Maxwell and Lewis could have lied but of course any witness could have lied. We can’t come up with an obvious reason for lying except that some people just like to be ‘involved,’ so it’s possible that they just made up their stories without knowing Kelly’s estimated TOD. A lie appears more likely than an error in this case perhaps? Unless they were telling truth of course (and they could have been)

2) and 3) My sympathies on losing your brother George. All that I can say about Kelly from the photo is that it’s possible that a general impression could have been arrived at, meaning that the body would have had to have been someone with a real resemblance to Kelly.

4) My only point there George would be that this was a well publicised series of random murders so it’s difficult to see why she would think that she might be an intended victim. (Have you been reading Mr Knight again, George?)

5) I wonder who this is?

https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/Kelly-12712

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

To be honest I’m not adamant on this point point I’d just say that the likelihood favours the body being that of Kelly. It’s not impossible of course that someone could have been staying there (as we know occurred occasionally via Barnett)

1) I agree that Maxwell is probably the most difficult witness to dismiss in the case as simply ‘mistaken.’ The ‘mixed up the days’ suggestion appears weak at best as you say and of course Maxwell claimed to have had a short face to face conversation with Kelly (a person that she knew) Maxwell and Lewis could have lied but of course any witness could have lied. We can’t come up with an obvious reason for lying except that some people just like to be ‘involved,’ so it’s possible that they just made up their stories without knowing Kelly’s estimated TOD. A lie appears more likely than an error in this case perhaps? Unless they were telling truth of course (and they could have been)

2) and 3) My sympathies on losing your brother George. All that I can say about Kelly from the photo is that it’s possible that a general impression could have been arrived at, meaning that the body would have had to have been someone with a real resemblance to Kelly.

4) My only point there George would be that this was a well publicised series of random murders so it’s difficult to see why she would think that she might be an intended victim. (Have you been reading Mr Knight again, George?)

5) I wonder who this is?

https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/Kelly-12712

Hi Herlock,

I am not adamant either, but Maxwell was, even in the face of a hostile coroner. I wonder what reason they could have had for making up stories. On that basis we can dismiss any witness that does not conform to our theories.

From my reading there is a suggestion that Barnett made his identification looking through the broken window. That seems unlikely to me but I am struggling to find anything that refutes it.

I don't subscribe to Mr Knight's theories but I find it difficult to believe that someone would not be shaken up by another person being murdered in their home.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi George , if you think the millers court victim wasnt Kelly, then whats your thoughts on my post 410 ?.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I am not adamant either, but Maxwell was, even in the face of a hostile coroner. I wonder what reason they could have had for making up stories. On that basis we can dismiss any witness that does not conform to our theories.

From my reading there is a suggestion that Barnett made his identification looking through the broken window. That seems unlikely to me but I am struggling to find anything that refutes it.

I don't subscribe to Mr Knight's theories but I find it difficult to believe that someone would not be shaken up by another person being murdered in their home.

Cheers, George

It’s impossible to come up with a logical reason why Maxwell or Lewis might have lied but, as you’ve said, it’s even more difficult to explain how Maxwell might have got her times wrong when she was interviewed so close to the event. If I recall correctly didn’t she say that she’d just been to return some plates? So, on the face of it, a lie seems likelier than an error perhaps. Unless she was correct of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When the post mortems were conducted and the organs found to be missing of course the doctors belived that the killer had taken them. because they would have had no idea what went on at the morturaries within that 12 hour window.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, I just noticed this.

“Dr. Phillips: I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

Coroner: You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?

Dr. Phillips: I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman.

Some portions had been excised.“

……

Dr. Phillips is clearly saying that when he closed up the victims clothes (in situ and before transit to the mortuary) some portions of the body had been cut out surgically.

[Abby Normal]

It’s impossible to come up with a logical reason why Maxwell or Lewis might have lied but, as you’ve said, it’s even more difficult to explain how Maxwell might have got her times wrong when she was interviewed so close to the event. If I recall correctly didn’t she say that she’d just been to return some plates? So, on the face of it, a lie seems likelier than an error perhaps. Unless she was correct of course.

Hi Herlock
I agree it seems pretty clear she had the right day but IMHO its a classic case of mistaken identity. maxwell didnt even know her "kelly" very well. only said she had seen her a couple of times before this encounter. mary let other women stay at her place and I think maxwell thought one of these women was kelly. Plus the time is just to tight for mary to have picked up a punter, brought him back to her place, started a fire, the man to kill and mutilate her that extensively and get away unseen in full morning daylight (and busy midmorning time) before she was discovered by bowyer. and (like chapman) we have other witnesses, the cries of murder, hearing footsteps of a man leaving etc that point to her murder occuring much earlier. also, I just dont see it very possible that someone who is basically in the throes of alcohol poisening is going to be in any shape to want to solicit and have sex. Theres also the very distinct possibility that maxwell was just another lying(or embellishing) attention seeker. The coroner seemed to have concerns with her story.
I place little faith in maxwell.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I just noticed this.

“Dr. Phillips: I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

Coroner: You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?

Dr. Phillips: I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman.

Some portions had been excised.“

……

Dr. Phillips is clearly saying that when he closed up the victims clothes (in situ and before transit to the mortuary) some portions of the body had been cut out surgically.

No thats not what he meant. he meant that the organs could not have dropped out in transit because he closed the clothes up, and the latter remark was about what he found at the post mortem there is no way he could or have examined the body at the scene to discover the organs missing and no way he could have discovered that anatomical knowledge was used because he did not conduct a throrough exmanination, if he had have done he would have disclosed that in his evidence in chief at the inquest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock
I agree it seems pretty clear she had the right day but IMHO its a classic case of mistaken identity. maxwell didnt even know her "kelly" very well. only said she had seen her a couple of times before this encounter. mary let other women stay at her place and I think maxwell thought one of these women was kelly. Plus the time is just to tight for mary to have picked up a punter, brought him back to her place, started a fire, the man to kill and mutilate her that extensively and get away unseen in full morning daylight (and busy midmorning time) before she was discovered by bowyer. and (like chapman) we have other witnesses, the cries of murder, hearing footsteps of a man leaving etc that point to her murder occuring much earlier. also, I just dont see it very possible that someone who is basically in the throes of alcohol poisening is going to be in any shape to want to solicit and have sex. Theres also the very distinct possibility that maxwell was just another lying(or embellishing) attention seeker. The coroner seemed to have concerns with her story.
I place little faith in maxwell.

Hi Abby,

I’m a little rusty on the details but your point about Maxwell hardly knowing Kelly is an important one. Maybe she was simply mistaken as you say but was one of those people who just can’t admit that they’ve made an error so she stuck rigidly to her story.

[GBinOz]

Hi George , if you think the millers court victim wasnt Kelly, then whats your thoughts on my post 410 ?.

Hi Fishy,

I am not locked into this theory, or any theory on JtR for that matter, but merely looking at the evidence which invariably provides contradictions.

In 1888 in the east end of London there were thousands of woman who had fallen into the category of unfortunate. Kelly had provided some of these women with a room, much to Barnett's disgust, so who would have missed them if Kelly disappeared?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi Abby,

I’m a little rusty on the details but your point about Maxwell hardly knowing Kelly is an important one. Maybe she was simply mistaken as you say but was one of those people who just can’t admit that they’ve made an error so she stuck rigidly to her story.

Hi Herlock,

Does being consistent with your story count for less that changing it as you go along?

Here are press reports from 10 Nov:
Mrs. Caroline Mapwell, of 14 Dorset street, the wife of a night watchman at Commercial Chambers, a common lodging house able to shelter 244 persons, and which is opposite the scene of the murder, said: "I have known the murdered woman well for the past six months. This (Friday) morning, as near as possible about half past eight, I saw Mary Jane (the murdered woman) standing outside the court. I said, "What brings you out so early, Mary Jane," and she answered, "I feel very queer. I cannot sleep. I have the horrors of the drink on me, as I have been drinking this last day or two." I said, "Well, I pity you, " and passed on. I then went to Bishopsgate; and on my return, just after nine o'clock, I saw Mary Jane talking to a man at the end of the street. Who he was I do not know. He was a short, stout man, about fifty years of age. I did not notice what he had on, but I saw that he wore a kind of plaid coat. I then went indoors to go to bed, as I had been on duty all night. Mary Jane (I only know her by that name) was a pleasant little woman, rather stout, fair complexion, and rather pale. I should say her age was be about 23. I had no idea she was an unfortunate, for I never saw her with any one, nor have I ever seen her drunk. She was a very quiet young woman, and had been in the neighbourhood about two years. She spoke with a kind of impediment. She belonged, I think, to Limerick, and had evidently been well connected.

THE TIME OF THE MURDER

Another important statement was made this morning to a representative of the Central News, by Mrs. Maxwell (or Mapwell) the wife of the deputy of a lodging house in Dorset street, situate just opposite the court in which the crime was committed. From the circumstantial character of Mrs. Maxwell's statement there is little doubt of its accuracy, and the police are now working on it in all directions. As Mrs. Maxwell saw the deceased woman at nine o'clock yesterday morning the crime must have been perpetrated in the broad light of day.

Mrs. Maxwell’s statement (which practically coincides with her previous statement given above) is as follows: "I assist my husband in his duties but we live next door, at No. 26 Dorset street. e stay up all night, and yesterday morning as I was going home, carrying my lantern and other things with me, I saw the woman Kelly standing at the entrance of the court. It was then about half past eight, and as it was unusual for her to be seen at that hour, I said to her, "Hallo, what are you doing up so early?" She said, "Oh, I'm very bad this morning. I have had the horrors. I have been drinking so much lately." I said to her, "Why don't you go and have half a pint of beer, it will put you right." She replied, "I've just had one, but I'm so bad I couldn't keep it down." I didn't know then that she had separated from the man she had been living with, and I thought he had been "paying" her. I then went out in the direction of Bishopsgate to do some errands, and on my return I saw Kelly standing outside the public house, talking to a man. That was the last I saw of her.

Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She affirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday. She knew that Kelly had been living with a man, and that they had quarrelled about ten days since. It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased. She had heard nothing during the night, and was out betimes in the morning, and her attention was not attracted to any circumstances of an unusual character.

From the inquest:
Maxwell:
The Coroner: You must be very careful about your evidence, because it is different to other people's. You say you saw her standing at the corner of the entry to the court ? - Yes, on Friday morning, from eight to half-past eight. I fix the time by my husband's finishing work. When I came out of the lodging-house she was opposite.
[Coroner] Did you speak to her ? - Yes; it was an unusual thing to see her up. She was a young woman who never associated with any one. I spoke across the street, "What, Mary, brings you up so early ?" She said, "Oh, Carrie, I do feel so bad."
[Coroner] And yet you say you had only spoken to her twice previously; you knew her name and she knew yours ? - Oh, yes; by being about in the lodging-house.
[Coroner] What did she say ? - She said, "I've had a glass of beer, and I've brought it up again"; and it was in the road. I imagined she had been in the Britannia beer-shop at the corner of the street. I left her, saying that I could pity her feelings. I went to Bishopsgate-street to get my husband's breakfast. Returning I saw her outside the Britannia public-house, talking to a man.
[Coroner] This would be about what time ? - Between eight and nine o'clock. I was absent about half-an-hour. It was about a quarter to nine.

Elizabeth Prater
I went to bed at half-past one and barricaded the door with two tables. I fell asleep directly and slept soundly. A kitten disturbed me about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four. As I was turning round I heard a suppressed cry of "Oh - murder!" in a faint voice. It seemed to proceed from the court.
[Coroner] Do you often hear cries of "Murder?" - It is nothing unusual in the street. I did not take particular notice.

Maxwell's statements are entirely consistent and were steadfastly adhered to in the face of a hostile coroner who finished the hearing with witnesses unheard. They were also supported by Lewis who had known Kelly for five years. Prater changes her story but somehow manages to be relied upon in the determination of a ToD.

When assessing witness credibility I put more stock in the consistent than in those who change their story as they go along. Your proposition seems to be that her consistency was an indication that she was just sticking to a lie, even though it was corroborated. I look at witnesses testimony on the basis of preponderance of evidence.

I agree with Abby that there wasn't enough time for Kelly to return to her room and be murdered after the sightings by Maxwell and Lewis, so if their sighting were genuine, and there is no reason to doubt them (remember your argument about Diemshitz's clock sighting), then there is a strong implication that it was not Kelly in that room.

Cheers, George