Maxwell's Gal

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

That would be an odd thing to do, would it not, at least if he tried to pull off something that made the coppers believe in Lawendes man and Astrakhan man being one and the same

It's a sound observation, Fish, but consider this:

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.

When Ian Huntley introduced himself to the police in the wake of the girls' murders, he stated that he had seen a man behaving suspiciously in the district; a man who drove a dirty red Ford Fiesta. Huntley's own car? A dirtly red Ford Fiesta.

Red herrings - quite literally.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
How about Gh simply told the truth, he saw a fancy dude pick up Mjk, followed them out of curiosity, was close enough to witness verbal interaction, when hearing about his friend/aquaintance being the Latest Ripper victim he pondered if he should get involved, but felt he had to, albeit on the monday evening.
Astracan therefore did exist, and that being the case is a major suspect, however because of morning sightings he may not have been her killer, unless he was still in kellys room since 2am.
A lot has been mentioned about the observation of the colour of the hankerchief as in red, but surely people of that period in poor lighting gave descriptions such as 'Saw Mrs smith last night , she had a lovely blue bonnet on and a new red shawl'..... or did they say 'Saw mrs smith last night, she had a nice bonnet on and a new shawl'
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"I think he introduced the red handkerchief into his account because he had the Lawende description of a "red neckerchief" in mind from the published Eddowes inquest."

That would be an odd thing to do, would it not, at least if he tried to pull off something that made the coppers believe in Lawendes man and Astrakhan man being one and the same - they were so distinctly different in every other detail that I fail to see that the police would buy it.
Unless you mean that the hanky just stuck in the back his mind..?

Fisherman