If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See?

[GUT]

I've seen documents written by one person, where corrections have been made and initialed by another hand.
If the statement belongs to Hutchinson, and he signs it, he is also acknowledging any corrections.
Isn't that the way it works?

Today every correction would be initialed, documents I’ve seen from the 1800s that doesn’t seem to have always been done.

[Wickerman]

Yep.

The Queens Head correction was not initialed.

What I mean is, the signature obviates the need for initials on any corrections.
He is signing the corrected document.

[packers stem]

whom she thought was mary wasn't mary. it didn't have to be another woman named mary from limerick.

but I admit she may have seen mary Kelly that morning-just IMHO very unlikely.

can you admit she might have been mistaken?

The point here Abby is that she knew she was around 24 and that she was from Limerick when interviewed by the press on the day of the murder
So yes , you would need to find another 24 year old Mary Jane from Limerick living in the court to write this off.
The fact that it was daylight,she lived opposite and would be well used to seeing her coming and going from the court and she actually carried out a conversation with somebody that she knew puts her testimony head and shoulders above anybody else .
No other witness ID comes even close to Maxwell
So for those reasons no , I can't accept that she could have been mistaken

[DJA]

Yep.

The Queens Head correction was not initialed.

Bit different here in Oz.
One copper starts writing while another hits you around the head with a telephone book.
Both stop when you sign.
This is a technological step up from the old rubber hose method.

[Wickerman]

Don't have it in front of me due to PC failure,however doubt it was either.

The hotel name was changed to Queens Head without being initialed.

I've seen documents written by one person, where corrections have been made and initialed by another hand.
If the statement belongs to Hutchinson, and he signs it, he is also acknowledging any corrections.
Isn't that the way it works?

[Abby Normal]

Just how many women 'of limerick' and around 24 years old living opposite Maxwell do you believe there were ?
Strange isn't it that Hutchinson has never been accused of getting the wrong person or the wrong day and yet a person who actually bothers to turn up to give evidence and who's story never wavered is treated this way in the persuit of denial ...

whom she thought was mary wasn't mary. it didn't have to be another woman named mary from limerick.

but I admit she may have seen mary Kelly that morning-just IMHO very unlikely.

can you admit she might have been mistaken?

[DJA]

Before a witness signs a statement it is read through - by the witness if literate, to the witness if not. Any corrections are then made (before signature). Assuming that usual procedure was followed the 'unknown' hand will have been either Badham or Hutchinson himself (and to clarify a simple misunderstanding as to the exact location if memory serves).

Don't have it in front of me due to PC failure,however doubt it was either.

The hotel name was changed to Queens Head without being initialed.

[packers stem]

IMHO Maxwell had the wrong person and Maurice was full of ****

Just how many women 'of limerick' and around 24 years old living opposite Maxwell do you believe there were ?
Strange isn't it that Hutchinson has never been accused of getting the wrong person or the wrong day and yet a person who actually bothers to turn up to give evidence and who's story never wavered is treated this way in the persuit of denial ...

[Bridewell]

Yet Hutchinson's original statement was changed by an unknown hand.

Before a witness signs a statement it is read through - by the witness if literate, to the witness if not. Any corrections are then made (before signature). Assuming that usual procedure was followed the 'unknown' hand will have been either Badham or Hutchinson himself (and to clarify a simple misunderstanding as to the exact location if memory serves).

[Abby Normal]

I worked nights regularly for 30 years. We used to work 7 nights on the spin and always starting on the same day. I always knew exactly how many of the 7 I had done and therefore what day it was. Both Maxwell and Lewis claim to have seen MJK on the morning of the 9th. Both mistaken? Both lying? Or both telling an inconvenient truth?

IMHO Maxwell had the wrong person and Maurice was full of ****

[Bridewell]

I can attest, from personal experience, that after working nights it's perfectly possible not to know what day of the week it is when you wake up, and thus inadvertently misinform the police when giving a witness statement during a murder investigation.
So I have some sympathy for the idea that Maxwell was mistaken about the day she saw Mary. But I agree that the shop corrobotation would rule this out if it was the only day she visited that shop.

I worked nights regularly for 30 years. We used to work 7 nights on the spin and always starting on the same day. I always knew exactly how many of the 7 I had done and therefore what day it was. Both Maxwell and Lewis claim to have seen MJK on the morning of the 9th. Both mistaken? Both lying? Or both telling an inconvenient truth?

[DJA]

Indeed, the title alone offers the first clue to misrepresentation. Smith was never a constable in the Met.

He became a Major in the East Suffolk Militia. Think ......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmohhAvgqqI

[Wickerman]

By the way, as for exhuming Eddowes, the following article from the Ripperologist suggests that she was actually buried 22 days before being murdered...

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-funeraledd.html

Maybe someone in the adminstration could pop in and change that to 'October'?

If that is an error by Mr Marsh in the original, then Admin may not touch it.

[rjpalmer]

How could Sutton have compared the Lusk kidney with the intact kidney and renal artery remaining in the corpse without exhuming Eddowes' body?

The autopsy notes?

Smith: "I made over the kidney to the police surgeon, instructing him to consult with the most eminent men in the profession, and send me a report without delay. I give the substance of it. The renal artery is about three inches long. Two inches remained in the corpse, one inch was attached to the kidney."

It sounds more like an estimate based on medical notes than any direct comparison from an exhumed corpse. That said, the interview with Gordon Brown discovered by Stewart Evans puts considerable doubt on whether 1" of renal artery was actually attached to the Lusk Kidney.

By the way, as for exhuming Eddowes, the following article from the Ripperologist suggests that she was actually buried 22 days before being murdered...

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-funeraledd.html

Maybe someone in the adminstration could pop in and change that to 'October'?

[Wickerman]

How could Sutton have compared the Lusk kidney with the intact kidney and renal artery remaining in the corpse without exhuming Eddowes' body? The Lusk letter was sent two weeks after her death.

As elsewhere in his memoirs, it seems that Smith was making things up in order to exaggerate his importance in the case.

Indeed, the title alone offers the first clue to misrepresentation. Smith was never a constable in the Met.