Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[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?

[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.

[etenguy]

My issue is we have two witness who say they saw her later.

Maxwell saw her about 8:30 and on the printed words seems unshakeable under questioning

Then Maurice Lewis who may have known her better than Maxwell saw her “out and about” around 8:00 am, which dovetails with maxwells evidence, it has always puzzled me why he wasn’t called at the inquest.

Hi GUT

I don't know the answer to your question, but two points often raised about Lewis' evidence are
a) he saw MJK from a distance and had no interaction with her - so was it her?
b) he says he saw MJK at a pub at 10.00am which many think is too late for her to be out that morning

[GUT]

My issue is we have two witness who say they saw her later.

Maxwell saw her about 8:30 and on the printed words seems unshakeable under questioning

Then Maurice Lewis who may have known her better than Maxwell saw her “out and about” around 8:00 am, which dovetails with maxwells evidence, it has always puzzled me why he wasn’t called at the inquest.

[etenguy]

Nobody was murdered in Millers Court on 9th November 1888.

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

I think I read an article in an early ripperologist written by you and concerning Mary J Kelly's room, and photographs taken. I need to refresh on that.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

I am with you on this.

I too was struck by the confidence of Maxwell's statement.

She stuck to her guns when challenged by the coroner (a circumstance which I would imagine to have been quite intimidating to a woman of her class at that time).

My initial thought (like Abby) was that she must have been a fame-hungry busybody, but then (from memory) we have both Abberline and Walter Dew stating that this was definitely not the case.

If they had any doubts as to her credibility I see no reason that they would feel moved to make these statements.

I know that the evidence of Maurice Lewis is regarded as being rather dubious, but I still think it's striking that there is indeed corroboration by a third party that Mary was out and about that morning.

That's quite a coincidence if Maxwell was mistaken or lying.

For all the problems it causes, my inclination is to believe Maxwell.

Although I admit there is (in my mind quite a slim) possibility she got the wrong person.

Hi Ms Diddles

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.

[etenguy]

oh and to add DK
as you mention-the extremely tight time frame and the large fire. to think that mary met a man, solicited him at the pub, walked back to her place, was murdered and mutilated to that extent and a large fire stoked up and that her killer then left in broad daylight morning not being seen in about an hour give or take stretches belief.
and the large fire with burnt clothes itself also points to a night time murder.

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.

[Simon Wood]

Good to see you around, Michael. Be well.

[Michael W Richards]

Nobody was murdered in Millers Court on 9th November 1888.

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

I saw that on another thread my old friend, I am getting it soon. Nice to see you are still stirring it up...

[Michael W Richards]

My thoughts exactly.

No matter how inconvenient it is, we cannot dismiss anything because it's better to have no answers that the wrong answers.

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.

[Ms Diddles]

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.

Hi Eten,

I am with you on this.

I too was struck by the confidence of Maxwell's statement.

She stuck to her guns when challenged by the coroner (a circumstance which I would imagine to have been quite intimidating to a woman of her class at that time).

My initial thought (like Abby) was that she must have been a fame-hungry busybody, but then (from memory) we have both Abberline and Walter Dew stating that this was definitely not the case.

If they had any doubts as to her credibility I see no reason that they would feel moved to make these statements.

I know that the evidence of Maurice Lewis is regarded as being rather dubious, but I still think it's striking that there is indeed corroboration by a third party that Mary was out and about that morning.

That's quite a coincidence if Maxwell was mistaken or lying.

For all the problems it causes, my inclination is to believe Maxwell.

Although I admit there is (in my mind quite a slim) possibility she got the wrong person.

[Abby Normal]

bingo DK
someone that ill, vomiting in the street, alcohol poisoning basically, isnt going to be in any kind of shape to have sex-especially having to try and solicitate a stranger.
so mary is ill, goes to try and drink it off, but then throws up in the street, then goes BACK to the pub to pick up a punter? no way.
It makes no sense, especially since she probably had her money for rent from Blotchy and planned to go to the lord mayers show. she was drunk with more in the pale, with a sugar daddy, food in her stomach, roof over her head, rent money in her pocket, crappy night.
add to that the cries of murder heard from TWO credible witnesses of a woman, coming from Marys room in the middle of the night.

she never went out again after Blotchy.

oh and to add DK
as you mention-the extremely tight time frame and the large fire. to think that mary met a man, solicited him at the pub, walked back to her place, was murdered and mutilated to that extent and a large fire stoked up and that her killer then left in broad daylight morning not being seen in about an hour give or take stretches belief.
and the large fire with burnt clothes itself also points to a night time murder.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

I cannot deny definitively the possibility you suggest, but the level of confidence in defying the coroner's obvious offer to her to reconsider her evidence would undermine that Maxwell was in any way confused about who she saw. But, if you are correct then the following also has to be true
a) The person Maxwell spoke to never came forward to correct the record
b) Mrs Maxwell never again saw the person she mistook for MJK to realise her mistake
c) It must have been a coincidence that the person Maxwell saw was dressed similarly to MJK
d) The person Mrs Maxwell saw also was named Mary
e) The person Maxwell saw had also been drinking as much as MJK the previous night
f) The person Maxwell saw also knew Maxwell well enough to call her by a contraction of her first name
g) The person Maxwell saw was also someone she did not know very well for any possible confusion to occur
h) The person Maxwell saw also had split from her regular fellow at about the same time MJK and Barnett split

It seems to me the simpler explanation is that MJK did meet Mrs Maxwell that morning or that Maxwell is lying.

I think alot of the above can be explained through rumor and gossip maxwell was probably engaged in either before and or after the murder. other than this the simplest explanation for me is she was lying/embellishing or had the wrong day. i find it hardest to beleive, considering all the other evidence pointing to a nightime 4ish am murder , that mary was still alive and up and about in the morning. but thats just me.

[etenguy]

hi eten
she had only known her for a couple of months and only saw her a few times. she was the wife of a lodging house owner and probably "knew" myriads of women, increasing the odds of being confused. plus Mary let her friends stay with her in her place.

mistaken identity. she had the wrong "mary".

Hi Abby

I cannot deny definitively the possibility you suggest, but the level of confidence in defying the coroner's obvious offer to her to reconsider her evidence would undermine that Maxwell was in any way confused about who she saw. But, if you are correct then the following also has to be true
a) The person Maxwell spoke to never came forward to correct the record
b) Mrs Maxwell never again saw the person she mistook for MJK to realise her mistake
c) It must have been a coincidence that the person Maxwell saw was dressed similarly to MJK
d) The person Mrs Maxwell saw also was named Mary
e) The person Maxwell saw had also been drinking as much as MJK the previous night
f) The person Maxwell saw also knew Maxwell well enough to call her by a contraction of her first name
g) The person Maxwell saw was also someone she did not know very well for any possible confusion to occur
h) The person Maxwell saw also had split from her regular fellow at about the same time MJK and Barnett split

It seems to me the simpler explanation is that MJK did meet Mrs Maxwell that morning or that Maxwell is lying.

[Simon Wood]

Nobody was murdered in Millers Court on 9th November 1888.

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