Maxwell's Gal

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Of course once again we could simply take Gh at his word , he simply saw the same man with kelly as seen with Eddowes, but as you said was then dressed down, thus the red hanky was his trade mark.
I hope Sickert fans aint reading this.
Richard.

[Ben]

How about Gh simply told the truth, he saw a fancy dude pick up Mjk, followed them out of curiosity

Hi Richard,

How about GH simply didn't tell the truth, but told a lie about seeing a fancy dude because he realised he'd been seen by Sarah Lewis and needed that "fancy dude" to become the fall guy in order to pre-empt possible suspicion against himself and his own inexplicable loitering near the crime scene? You need to consider all possible implications of him "pondering if he should get involved, but felt he had to". Don't you find it a little odd that the "felt he had to" part just happened to coincide with the inquest evidence - and specifically Sarah Lewis' statement - becoming public knowledge?

I'm hoping to avoid another discussion about what could or couldn't be seen in inferior lighting conditions, but I'd strongly advise you to read Bob Hinton's excellent chapter on this subject in "From Hell".

Of course once again we could simply take Gh at his word , he simply saw the same man with kelly as seen with Eddowes, but as you said was then dressed down, thus the red hanky was his trade mark.

But then we'd be straying off into very obvious fantasy. I'm sure Sickert fans are going to love your suggestion, but that's what happens when we accept dubious accounts on blind faith.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"If Hutchinson had reason to be concerned about the prospect of the police findering a local Gentile Joe as a direct consequence of Lawende's evidence, a superficial comparison with the Astrakhan man via a "mutually supportive" red reg would have been just the ticket. It would have introduced the prospect that the ostensibly local shabby bloke from Church Passage was actually just "dressing down" for the district, but still retained the "incriminating" red hand/neckerchief."

Superficial and dressing down (waaay down) being the operative words here.
Thanks for elaborating, Ben. But not my cup of tea. If Hutch had spoken of a darkish man with a distictly unenglish accent, clad in shabby, ill-fitting clothes and with a nicely bent nose offering his red hanky to Kelly, I think he would have stood a better chance of the police catching on. Red handker- or neckerchiefs would not have been all that distinguishing items, if my guess is right.

Fisherman

[BillieHoliday]

I'm sure Mary's eyes looked queer because she had just vomited. The eyes tend to water copiously when you throw up.

I don't know what to think of Maxwell - if she was lying it was to get attention and be part of the drama. As soon as she realised her evidence didn't tally I would have expected her to change the the day she alleged to have seen her.

[Ben]

If Hutch had spoken of a darkish man with a distictly unenglish accent, clad in shabby, ill-fitting clothes and with a nicely bent nose offering his red hanky to Kelly, I think he would have stood a better chance of the police catching on.

Hi Fish - The salient point about Mr. Astrakhan's physical particulars was that they were the virtual antithesis of the local, gentile man as embodied by Lawende's description. If Hutchinson had any desire or intention to deflect suspicion in the direction of the Jewish toff but away from the Gentile shabby local, here was a good way of establishing a link with earlier witness sightings. Again, the Huntley example assumes a resonance here.

It's also possible that he left such an item in the room and needed to vindicate its presence there when inevitably found.

Ben

[Chava]

I think there is a problem here in the use of the word 'handkerchief'. After the mid-century, women carried handkerchiefs as decoration and they were considered a fairly upper-class thing to have around. They also had sensual connotations of perfume etc. They were not used as they are now to blow the nose. They were used as decoration. And they were often tied round the neck. For example, from Bagster Phillips' description of Annie Chapman's body"

A handkerchief was round the throat of the deceased when he saw it early in the morning. He should say it was not tied on after the throat was cut."

The chances are that if Kelly was in possession of a handkerchief, she wouldn't use it to wipe her nose. It would be too special and decorative for that. She likely used her sleeve. Likewise, a coloured or patterned handkerchief was considered a natty accessory for a man. So if Kelly said 'I've lost my handkerchief' she wasn't asking Mr A for something to blow her nose with. She was suggesting that she was refined enough to have one. And Mr A produces his lovely red one for her.

The above in italics because I don't believe it happened!

In any case, Kelly's cold or lack thereof has nothing to do with Mr A's offer of a hankie. There are a bunch of interesting articles on the use of handkerchieves in Victorian dress. Here is a good one.

[miss marple]

Quite right Chava, but the gaily coloured coster neckchef was worn with pride, so it was not just an upper class thing.
Miss M

[Chava]

That's right. Miss Marple. I didn't mean to suggest that it was solely an upper-class affectation. By the time of the Ripper, the handkerchief was being work by working-class women round their necks as decoration. I believe that's what Hutchinson is referring to in his story.

[perrymason]

I am really curious about these two characters, Hutch and Carrie Maxwell, but not for reasons Richard might agree upon I think.

To my mind, I cannot recall any evidence that anyone in power saw Maxwell's account as anything but incorrect or a bold faced lie. With Hutchinson however we have no less than one of the Senior officers in on the Ripper crimes backing his remarks. We also know that backing is soon withdrawn, but not why, but the fact remains he was presented as a "god-sent" eyewitness initially.

We know he only came forward after the Inquest, so no reason to wonder why he wasnt called, but why in heavens name did they ever let a woman on the stand, that they feel they have to preface with a disclaimer on her story?

These Inquests were a bit bizarre...we have Schwartz on record before the Inquest, but hes not called,...we have Lawende on record before the Inquest, yet his story is supressed, we have Carrie Maxwell called to tell us something that evidently no-one believes, and we have George Hutchinsons story that would effectively re-write the search parameters for Jack not worth re-opening the Inquest for, even for a matter of record only.

Carrie Maxwell is among the unexplained, but not the aggrieved.

Best regards all.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Michael,
Very much in agreement with you regarding Mrs Maxwell being called at the inquest, when all it would do is blatently disagree with their own police doctors, it is almost if they questioned the T.O.D.
There simply has to be a explanation for the Mary Kelly sighting, and the obvious is the doctors were out with their findings, i cannot go with the flow on Casebook . ie she was mistaken, on either person, or day.
What about Maurice Lewis[ tailor] was he lying his cotton socks , about playing pitch in the court[ an illegal practise then] was he lying about Kelly leaving her room, and returning to it shortly after?
He seemed to know MJK well, rather like Hutchinson, i would say many people in that area knew of the gal with the long hair, who lived in that court,
Regards Richard.

[Nemo]

Hi all

Would there not be the question of the identification of Mary?

Maxwells statement may have indicated to the police / coroner that there was a possibility that body in No. 13 was not that of Kelly. There had already been problems with the identification of previous victims.

[perrymason]

Hi all

Would there not be the question of the identification of Mary?

Maxwells statement may have indicated to the police / coroner that there was a possibility that body in No. 13 was not that of Kelly. There had already been problems with the identification of previous victims.

If there is any body that we cannot be sure of its identity, this one is certainly it Nemo, but if they thought Maxwells evidence might support another body being in that bed, why did they preface her remarks with something to the effect..."it goes against all evidence already given".

I believe her introduction to the proceedings is most baffling because of their apparent perception that she provides information that is of no use to the investigation, due to the fact it opposes the medical evidence and its contrary to the identifications made of the body by those closest to her.

I do agree with Richard that this is inexplicable, however I am less likely to then raise the importance of the remarks... because of all the witnesses involved in the Inquest except perhaps Sarah Lewis...who doesnt claim to have seen Mary. Maxwell "knew" Mary the least, by her own admission of 2 passing "hellos' in 4 months.

Best regards all.

[Chava]

But Barnett identified Mary by the shape of her ear. did he not? And even though the face was hurt beyond belief, there was still the hair, the height, the general appearance of the body.

There is disagreement as to what time she was killed, but I would suspect that the consistency of the pools of blood etc would lead the pathologists to discount the idea that she was killed within an hour of her body being found. Also the fire had died down considerably by then after having had a lot of extraneous things added to it much earlier. Feeding the fire suggests the need for heat and light. Letting it die down and then killing Kelly doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The need for light would still be there late into the morning at that time of year.

We're not privy to the decision to let Maxwell testify. However, given that she was firm in her identification and the time-line, I think on balance it's better to let her speak than not to call her and have conspiracy theories abound throughout the neighbourhood. She says her piece and can't sell an 'I was silenced' story to the newspapers.

[perrymason]

I think Barnett identified her by "ear" and eyes, whether he meant hair or ear isnt really clear.

But I know for myself, I cannot see an intact orb on Marys face, and since the eye is comprised mostly of fluid and covered by a very thin membrane, it can easily be ruptured, emptied and collapse.

Best regards Chava...yo to LI

[Dave O]

The jury

Just a word about Lawende--his description was not suppressed at the Eddowes inquest. Crawford put that to the jury's discretion, and they decided not to not have it in, I am sure out of deference to the City police. But a majority of the jury could just as easily have ignored Crawford and had Lawende testify in further detail, and there is not a thing that the police or coroner could have done about it without risking flushing the inquest down the toilet, along with the ratepayers' money that funded it. The jury's discretion was a check against the coroner's. For the coroner to refuse the jury access to evidence they wanted to hear without sufficient legal grounds would open the inquest to possible invalidation by the High Court, and if you look at the inquests that came up for High Court review in the 19th century, there is some point in each case where the Justices have to decide whether there was some sort of misconduct or error by the coroner that caused evidence to be incorrectly kept back from the jury. And if there was, then the Justices would quash the inquest and order the coroner to hold a new one. That is why in the Ripper inquests, you will sometimes see the coroner defer to the jury upon the evidence. The coroner and police just couldn't do whatever they wanted.