Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

I don't think we've been on different sides of the argument on here before, but we are this time. I can't say you are wrong, but I disagree - at least until we get some further information.

I would say in respect of the above:
a) we do not know the murderer had anything to do with the fire - I wonder if this was set by Barnett in anger at finding Maria Harvey in the room when he visited- hence burning the clothes Harvey had brought. I don't think a murderer at any time would start a fire - especially one used to working in the dark and not wanting to bring attention to the room. None of the witnesses state they saw light/flames from the room - not even Hutchinson who stayed and watched.
b) MJK may have met the murderer before she met Maxwell and had left him at home while she left for whatever reason (possibly for some air because she felt sick)

I can't say the above is accurate, just speculation - but it is also only speculation that the murderer set the fire.

no worries eten. but just a couple points. A)a killer safely ensconced with the victim in her private room which can lock has no worries anout a fire causing attention. why would he? nothing out of the ordinary about someone having a fire going in there room. and tje amount of time the killer obviously had with her and the extent of damage, the fire was a big plus for him, he could see better what he was doing and, importantly, get off more on it.
And whats more likely- that the killer burnt the clothes or barnett? a vicious serial killer who had no regard for human life (let alone belongings) or an ex boyfriend who was on good terms with mary and all evidence pointing to he was basically a good guy and was still looking after her? there simply is no evidence barnett was angry with her that night, and we even have a witness.
b)dosnt make sense. maxwell said she saw mary again later after their chat at the pub talking to a man.

[The Rookie Detective]

I would look at this from another perspective.

Let's hypothesise for a moment and indulge in the idea that Maxwell was lying.

Why would she lie?

Or more to the point, what would be the reason for her to lie about seeing MJK alive and well the next morning?

What would be her reason or motive to lie?


So we know that she was the wife of Henry Maxwell and lodging house keeper at 14 Dorset Street.

Is there a connection through the lodging house at 14 Dorset Street to the murder of MJK?

A common reason to lie, is to provide someone with an alibi.

There's a chance that the real killer was lodging at the lodging house at 14 Dorset Street on the night MJK was murdered...and Maxwell may have been required to try and confuse the investigation.

It's not as though those involved with lodging houses hadn't lied or tried to cover things up at various times. Take for example the case of Mary Ann Austin...


In 1901 the attempted murder/murder of Mary Ann Austin occurred in Crossingham's lodging house at 35 Dorset Street and the lodging house tried to cover it up and the likes of Daniel Sullivan (Crossinghams Brother in Law) actively tried to confuse the police by trying to conceal the true location of the murder within the lodging house.

In other words, there may have been another reason why Maxwell's account doesn't seem to fit.

Did she know more than she let on?

[Wickerman]

Is it possible Morris Lewis was describing Maxwell?

Well, what I think is the reporter has confused Lewis in thinking he was referring to Kelly, when in fact he was talking about Maxwell, as she was the one going for milk not Kelly.
There had to be some confusion, and my money is on the newspaper (reporter or editor) who got things twisted.

As for Maxwell's story, I'm still not convinced she recognised Kelly.

[Wickerman]

What if Maxwell is a credible witness and MJK was still alive until the late morning... Wouldn't that potentially implicate Bowyer or McCarthy?

Men were coming and going all the time, no need to single out Bowyer or McCarthy.
Bowyer was their oddjob-man, could he seriously go missing for long enough to rip a woman up and not be missed by his employers?

[The Rookie Detective]

No answer IS the wrong answer. This case has a truth, if it isnt whats been put forward up until now, then it just means the truth is elsewhere.

Ah you misunderstood me Michael. Of course everything has an answer, but the absence of knowledge of the truthful answer shouldn't be filled in with an answer just for the sake of having a reason in place.

In other words, if there's a murder then there's always a truth in that there is always a killer...but if that killer can't be conclusively proven, then it s better for there to be a space left for the killer to be found, than for a killer to be put in place just for the sake of fulfilling the need to find the truth.

Unproven truth is more important than just giving an answer that may be false.
It would be like convicting the wrong man, just for the sake of giving an answer.

RD

[Wickerman]

Elizabeth Prater told one interviewer that she went down and knocked on Marys door around 6:30 or 7 that morning with no answer. So, If Mary is seen out at around 8 by Maxwell, then where is she at 7?

Mary Kelly was not seen by anyone we know that knew her well, like Elizabeth Prater and Mary Ann Cox, after going into her room Thursday night at around 11:45. She was in Mary Anns words slurring her speech and very drunk. She sings off and on for over an hour, then the room goes dark and quiet and no-one is seen leaving that room. That means its likely she intended to bed down with Blotchy or he left. Point being she was there, incapacitated to some degree, and someone was seen watching her room. Empty rooms arent watched.

Nothing changes does it Michael?
When the room is quiet and dark there are two equal possibilities - she is either in, or out.
If she is in, she is either asleep or dead and we have no witnesses to support either view.
If she is out she could be seen, and we do have two witnesses, three if we include Sarah Lewis, who saw Kelly out after 1:30 am.
Hutchinson saw Kelly about 2:00-2:30?, Lewis saw the same 'couple' that Hutchinson was watching (Astrachan & Kelly), then Kennedy saw Kelly outside the Britannia about 3:00 am.
The fact you choose to ignore them is a problem you have to deal with.

[Wickerman]

Hi Elamarna

I am struck by the confidence of Mrs Maxwell's evidence and struggle to dismiss it. I do not believe she would not recognise her neighbour whom she had conversed with once or twice and she also had some understanding of MJK's domestic set up. Especially since she addressed her by name and no-one else said they had spoken with Mrs Maxwell in that vain when her story was made known.
Nor can I believe she got the date wrong given the events of that morning and the corroboration provided by the shop keeper. Abberline thought her a reliable witness and there is no obvious reason for her to lie.
If I am right to believe Mrs Maxwell gave reliable and accurate evidence, then I have to support a later time of death - unless we start down the line of it being a different person murdered, but I'm not inclined to walk that path.

What troubles me is that the police do come across witnesses who claim to have had a closer relationship with the victim than was really the case. We have to be honest, Maxwell could tell us anything and we have no way of challenging it.

If we can imaging the attention she gained from neighbors and reporters because she claimed to be the last person to see Kelly alive, maybe she immersed herself in the lime light for one brief shining moment?
When challenged, probably first by Abberline, then by the coroner, she possibly doubled-down, and threw in a few more points of recognition to help support her claim?
We are simply in no position to judge, yet we know the medical evidence is always going to be of prime significance in any investigation.

[etenguy]

no worries eten. but just a couple points. A)a killer safely ensconced with the victim in her private room which can lock has no worries anout a fire causing attention. why would he? nothing out of the ordinary about someone having a fire going in there room. and tje amount of time the killer obviously had with her and the extent of damage, the fire was a big plus for him, he could see better what he was doing and, importantly, get off more on it.
And whats more likely- that the killer burnt the clothes or barnett? a vicious serial killer who had no regard for human life (let alone belongings) or an ex boyfriend who was on good terms with mary and all evidence pointing to he was basically a good guy and was still looking after her? there simply is no evidence barnett was angry with her that night, and we even have a witness.
b)dosnt make sense. maxwell said she saw mary again later after their chat at the pub talking to a man.

Hi Abby

Re the fire and Barnett

It is only speculation and doesn't really talk to time of death. I just don't see a murderer having just killed someone stopping to start a fire before mutilating.
Barnett left MJK because she had let Harvey stay in the house. He broke the window in an argument with MJK over Harvey. Harvey certainly pressed his triggers. When Barnett arrives on the 8th and finds Harvey there - she says she left straight away (could see Barnett was not happy finding her there - my speculation). It could well be he was angry and burnt the clothes Harvey had brought to make sure she kept away in future. Doesn't make Barnett a monster, just someone protective of MJK and wanting to shield her from what he thought was bad company. Just speculation - may never have happened - but not out of character given the history between the two.

Regarding the pub sighting

If it was MJK at the pub with a man, then it could be she only just picked him up and there was time to take him home and for the murder to be committed - or he could have been waiting for her there rather than at miller's court when she walked off to be sick. However, I think it more than likely that Maxwell was mistaken about who she saw at the pub (from a distance and with no interaction). Although Maurice Lewis independently tells the same story so possibly it was MJK at the pub later than is normally thought possible. If the writer of the report I posted earlier is correct then the murderer needed no more than 30 mins to complete the murder and mutilations.

[c.d.]

Hello R.D.,

It is not necessary for her to have been lying to be wrong. She simply could have been mistaken. No lie necessary. Happens all the time.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

We have the same trouble dismissing someone who appears a reliable and credible witness. I am more inclined to think Maxwell had a reason to lie rather than she was mistaken. I don't know of any reason for her to lie, but it is just possible there was a reason we don't know about.

I think 'lie' is too strong, I don't see her intending to cause the sensation she eventually found herself in.
When she was interviewed by police no-one knew when the murder had taken place.
Maxwell first claimed to have not seen Kelly for three weeks before that Friday morning.
This remark alone suggests to me she had the wrong woman in mind when giving evidence to police on that Friday.
She also said she saw Kelly at the end of the street with a man, though admitted that was too far for her to identify him, yet she was able to identify Kelly?

[c.d.]

What about if Mary had told her killer we won't be disturbed. I will start a fire which is a signal that I am with somebody.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Mary Jane [Jeanette] Kelly did not exist. She was fictitious. Therefore, all arguments and theories as to her behaviour have no practical relevance.

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Histor...imon+daryl+woo d&qid=1689706161&s=books&sr=1-1

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Re the fire and Barnett

It is only speculation and doesn't really talk to time of death. I just don't see a murderer having just killed someone stopping to start a fire before mutilating.
Barnett left MJK because she had let Harvey stay in the house. He broke the window in an argument with MJK over Harvey. Harvey certainly pressed his triggers. When Barnett arrives on the 8th and finds Harvey there - she says she left straight away (could see Barnett was not happy finding her there - my speculation). It could well be he was angry and burnt the clothes Harvey had brought to make sure she kept away in future. Doesn't make Barnett a monster, just someone protective of MJK and wanting to shield her from what he thought was bad company. Just speculation - may never have happened - but not out of character given the history between the two.

Regarding the pub sighting

If it was MJK at the pub with a man, then it could be she only just picked him up and there was time to take him home and for the murder to be committed - or he could have been waiting for her there rather than at miller's court when she walked off to be sick. However, I think it more than likely that Maxwell was mistaken about who she saw at the pub (from a distance and with no interaction). Although Maurice Lewis independently tells the same story so possibly it was MJK at the pub later than is normally thought possible. If the writer of the report I posted earlier is correct then the murderer needed no more than 30 mins to complete the murder and mutilations.

hi eten
re fire and barnet. tje killer neednt start the fire from scratch after he killed her. the fire was probably started that night by mary for normal purposes, and stoked up by the killer after he killed her with the clothes.
Barnett left kelly because they were arguing over her letting her friends stay with her and the broken window was during some argument we dont know what is was about. please provide the sources that both were specifically about harvey.
harvey probably left when barnett arrived because it was the normal thing to do. it was a delicate situation between to recently parted lovers and its obvious you leave to give them privacy to talk, maybe work things out. tjere was no specific history or bad blood that we know of between harvey and barnett nor any argument between barnett and harvey that night. there was know known bad blood between barnett and kelly and no evidence of any argument between the two that night. if barnett burned the clothes that harvey brought over im sure it would have caused quite a row, as mary would have tried to stop him, and im sure harvey would have said something to the police about all this supposed bad blood.your scenario is more than speculation, its speculation piled on speculation. and to say that its more likely that barnett burned the clothes than marys killer is to me anyway preposterous. it make slightly more sense to say barnett was the killer, and thats why he burned the clothes.

re your b) so your admitting you were mistaken about your b scenario and that it made no sense. i really cant tell.. you talked around it presenting new scenarios. so now your saying maybe maxwell was mistaken about marys identity 30 minutes later after being positive and correct about her just earlier?!? cmon eten.
maurice lewis sighting is so apocryphal and nebulous and please see wickers above on lewis and the probable garbled press account.
thirty minutes to solicitate a stranger, walk back to her house, a huge fire to be made, murdered amd extensively mutilated and the killer to leave with no one seeing him in broad daylight morning in thirty minutes?!?! again cmon eten.

[etenguy]

hi Eten
Barnett left kelly because they were arguing over her letting her friends stay with her and the broken window was during some argument we dont know what is was about. please provide the sources that both were specifically about harvey.

Hi Abby

From Barnett's evidence at the inquest:
[Coroner] Why did you leave her ? - Because she had a woman of bad character there, whom she took in out of compassion, and I objected to it. That was the only reason. I left her on the Tuesday between five and six p.m.

From Harvey's evidence at the inquest:
[Maria Harvey] stated: I knew the deceased as Mary Jane Kelly. I slept at her house on Monday night and on Tuesday night.

The above demonstrates that Barnett left MJK solely because Maria Harvey was staying with her

(that was the only reason)

- he describes her as a woman of bad character - I think we can safely conclude he had bad feeling against Maria Harvey both from the way he describes her and because she was the cause of his leaving MJK.

re your b) so your admitting you were mistaken about your b scenario and that it made no sense. i really cant tell..

No - just that it is one option and there could be others to explain how MJK was alive at 8.30 and dead by mid morning.

so now your saying maybe maxwell was mistaken about marys identity 30 minutes later after being positive and correct about her just earlier?!? cmon eten.

I am saying that where an interaction took place between MJK and Maxwell we can be more certain that it happened as described with no mistakes than when there is a sighting at some distance with no interaction where a mistake is possible.

maurice lewis sighting is so apocryphal and nebulous and please see wickers above on lewis and the probable garbled press account.

Maurice Lewis is often doubted - and I have to agree with you that when there is a sighting at some distance with no interaction then there is more reason to consider a mistake a possibility (as I had to with Mrs Maxwell also).

thirty minutes to solicitate a stranger, walk back to her house, a huge fire to be made, murdered amd extensively mutilated and the killer to leave with no one seeing him in broad daylight morning in thirty minutes?!?! again cmon eten.

We disagree that all the actions you describe necessarily took place when MJK returned to her room - it was only speculation and may be wrong but Barnett setting the fire is quite plausible to me. But whether he did or not, what evidence is there that the fire was started by the murderer or even at the time MJK was murdered. Also, as I mentioned previously, the soliciting may have occurred earlier. Having said that, the later pub sighting has, IMHO and for the reasons I stated, less robust evidence supporting it.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

From Barnett's evidence at the inquest:
[Coroner] Why did you leave her ? - Because she had a woman of bad character there, whom she took in out of compassion, and I objected to it. That was the only reason. I left her on the Tuesday between five and six p.m.

From Harvey's evidence at the inquest:
[Maria Harvey] stated: I knew the deceased as Mary Jane Kelly. I slept at her house on Monday night and on Tuesday night.

The above demonstrates that Barnett left MJK solely because Maria Harvey was staying with her - he describes her as a woman of bad character - I think we can safely conclude he had bad feeling against Maria Harvey both from the way he describes her and because she was the cause of his leaving MJK.




No - just that it is one option and there could be others to explain how MJK was alive at 8.30 and dead by mid morning.



I am saying that where an interaction took place between MJK and Maxwell we can be more certain that it happened as described with no mistakes than when there is a sighting at some distance with no interaction where a mistake is possible.



Maurice Lewis is often doubted - and I have to agree with you that when there is a sighting at some distance with no interaction then there is more reason to consider a mistake a possibility (as I had to with Mrs Maxwell also).



We disagree that all the actions you describe necessarily took place when MJK returned to her room - it was only speculation and may be wrong but Barnett setting the fire is quite plausible to me. But whether he did or not, what evidence is there that the fire was started by the murderer or even at the time MJK was murdered. Also, as I mentioned previously, the soliciting may have occurred earlier. Having said that, the later pub sighting has, IMHO and for the reasons I stated, less robust evidence supporting it.

hi eten
thank you for providing the harvey sources. while her name is not specifically mentioned its obvious that she is the one barnett is talking about. i was wrong about that so thanks for correcting me.
is there a source for the window breaking argument being specifically about harvey too?

the rest well just have to agree to disagree my friend.