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

[Joshua Rogan]

You probably would scream, however I can't remember reading any account of a scream being heard, just a faint " oh murder"....and that just doesn't sound realistic to me.

Mrs Prater was reported as describing a faint or suppressed cry or voice, but she was a little further away than Lewis, who described it (according to various papers) as a cry, a shout or a scream, some adding that it was loud.

[Sam Flynn]

Mrs Prater was reported as describing a faint or suppressed cry or voice, but she was a little further away than Lewis, who described it (according to various papers) as a cry, a shout or a scream, some adding that it was loud.

Correct. This is congruent with Prater dozing in her bed at the front of 26 Dorset Street "above the shed" - i.e. some horizontal and vertical distance away with an intervening stairwell - and Lewis sitting awake at the Keylers, just across the court from Kelly's door and broken window.

[miss marple]

Bottom line is there was no 'doppleganger' of Mary Kelly as the woman described by both Mrs Maxwell and Maurice Lewis was completely different from the woman known as Mary Kelly. She was described by both of them as a short dark stout woman, whom Lewis claimed to have known for about five years, what ! Mary was not even in the East End then. Maxwell described her as a quiet woman who kept herself to herself,and seemed to be unaware she had been living with Barnett up until a few days before her death. She claimed to have spoken to her about twice in a couple of months and in her story claims Mary called her 'Carrie' as if she were an intimate friend.

The whole thing smells worse than rotten haddock and knowing how powerful the bosses of the lodging houses were, l believe she was trying to throw the authorities off the scent, perhaps Lewis had been' leaned' on too. The police I believe did check the pubs, strange no one saw Mary Kelly drinking in the Britannia round about 9am when Lewis claimed she went in.

When evidence is so contradictory you got to ask why? What is going on?

miss marple

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

As most probably know, I'm one who actually believes Mrs Maxwell.

That said...

From the things I was told by my maternal grandmother, b. August 1888, a few stones throws away, growing up in the area left various vivid memories.

She explained that as a small child, and onwards, all sorts of stories and tales were told. Some people "involved" themselves in the story, for a variety of different reasons.
As she grew up, she learned to tell the tall tale tellers from the honest ones. Stories were rife in the area even 15/20 years after 1888. She died aged 90 in 1978, when I was 20.
I was fortunate to hear many things that others only guess at..the people..the living conditions etc. Most fortunate indeed.

So. Taking a few steps backwards, it may be that some people invented their own importance at the time too.

As I said. I believe Mrs Maxwell. But yes, I can understand invention of involvement is possible. The great counter to this point however is that she went ahead and testified at the inquest, under quite strong challenge it must be said, and stuck to her story. She would not be budged.

Just my twopenn'yth.


Phil

[Joshua Rogan]

What are the chances that Maxwell at some point realised she'd made a mistake (either in identity or date) but for whatever reason - pride, embarrassment, ego trip, stubbornness - felt she had to stick to her story?

[Simon Wood]

Maxwell's testimony threw a huge spanner into the works, and the Coroner knew exactly what she was going to say before she even opened her mouth. Hence his admonition.

It should have been possible for Coroner Macdonald to quickly settle the matter: that the victim identified by Maxwell as Mary Jane Kelly had died prior to the time she claimed to have spoken to her. But no medical evidence was introduced in support of this contention and the subject was dropped, resulting in an inquest which failed to establish a time of death.

Daily Telegraph, 14th November 1888—
“It is in the power of the Attorney-General to apply to the High Court of Justice to hold a new inquest, if he is satisfied that there has been rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, or insufficiency of inquiry. This course is improbable, as it is stated that Mr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, with whom the coroner consulted in private, has had a commission from the Home Office for some time, and he does not consider himself a ‘free agent’; but it is pointed out that by hurriedly closing the inquest the opportunity has been lost of putting on record statements made on oath, and when the memory of witnesses is fresh. It is not improbable that a long interval may elapse before a prisoner is charged at the police-court.”

So, what did Dr. Phillips know that he wasn't able to share?

[Sam Flynn]

So, what did Dr. Phillips know that he wasn't able to share?

Is that flowery Victorian prose in the Telegraph implying that he did? I can't make head or tail of it; it's like the journalist was channelling Tobias Smollett.

[Simon Wood]

What makes you think it was flowery Victorian prose?

It will be a cold day in hell before we make head or tail of this mystery.

[Joshua Rogan]

It will be a cold day in hell before we make head or tail of this mystery.

Fortunately it looks like the average daily temperature is below freezing all Winter, so we should have this cleared up relatively soon;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Norway

[Simon Wood]

I love an optimist.

[DJA]

What makes you think it was flowery Victorian prose?

It will be a cold day in hell before we make head or tail of this mystery.

First of all consider Phillips' testimony at Chapman's inquest concerning the blade and anatomical knowledge. Almost like he knew Jack. Possibly as he passed by Phillip's house on his way to and from work at the London Hospital.
Spital Square is an extension of Hanbury Street.

Have a look at Henry Matthews,a protege of Lord Randolph Churchill.
A surprise appointment as Home Secretary.
Seems Queen Victoria had a say in that.
Matthews never married and his private life seems to be a closed book.
Presided over both the Jack the Ripper and Cleveland Street cases.

Look at Phillips' involvement in seeking a pardon after Hutchinson came forward.

Look at the venue for Mary Kelly's inquest and the shambles that it was.
Henry Gawen Sutton was medical officer for that Vestry.
(Gawen was an important name in the Prayer Book Rebellion )

We are looking at a top level cover up led by Matthews and Abberline.
Phillips was the meat in the sandwich.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

You are most definitely thinking along the right lines.

I would merely add that the Millers Court top level cover-up was a club sandwich, in that it had more than one filling.

Regards,

Simon

[DJA]

Perhaps more like a Dagwood sandwich.

[Simon Wood]

Oh boy!

Let's keep it simple to start with.

[Sam Flynn]

What makes you think it was flowery Victorian prose?

The whole thing reads like something out of a late 18th/early 19th Century novel. My comprehension is usually pretty sound, but this makes my brain hurt:

"It is in the power of the Attorney-General to apply to the High Court of Justice to hold a new inquest, if he is satisfied that there has been rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, or insufficiency of inquiry. This course is improbable, as it is stated that Mr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, with whom the coroner consulted in private, has had a commission from the Home Office for some time, and he does not consider himself a ‘free agent'; but it is pointed out that by hurriedly closing the inquest the opportunity has been lost of putting on record statements made on oath, and when the memory of witnesses is fresh. It is not improbable that a long interval may elapse before a prisoner is charged at the police-court"

What, if anything, is it actually saying about Phillps?