Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[Ms Diddles]

I agree, Ms Diddles. I think it unlikely she was mistaken about the day or the person she was speaking with. It is more likely she lied than was mistaken, IMHO. There is no reason to think she was lying, quite the opposite. But then that would mean either it wasn't MJK who was killed, or it was MJK and she wasn't killed until after 9.00am, after having left Maxwell and gone back to bed.

Yes, that's what I really struggle with.

As stated, I find it hard to believe that Jack could have exited Millers Court in broad daylight and not been spotted.

On fanciful days, I lean towards the conclusion that whoever it was in that room, wasn't the woman known as MJK.

When I think like that, I admonish myself for having read far too many Agatha Christies and getting carried away though!

I agree with Wick too that Mary Jane Kelly was likely not her real name.

[etenguy]

But escaping in a hurry if need be would have to always be in the back of his mind. Would he want to make a dash for it completely naked?

c.d.

I agree - don't think he was naked.

[etenguy]

She's corroborated by Lewis and the shopkeeper, and she refused to be swayed when put under pressure at the inquest. Abberline vouches for her good character. I believe her. It's where that leads me that I struggle with!!!

I agree, Ms Diddles. I think it unlikely she was mistaken about the day or the person she was speaking with. It is more likely she lied than was mistaken, IMHO. There is no reason to think she was lying, quite the opposite. But then that would mean either it wasn't MJK who was killed, or it was MJK and she wasn't killed until after 9.00am, after having left Maxwell and gone back to bed.

[c.d.]

But escaping in a hurry if need be would have to always be in the back of his mind. Would he want to make a dash for it completely naked?

c.d.

[etenguy]

This is definitely in the realms of fanciful speculation, but perhaps Jack worked naked to avoid getting blood on his clothes.

The fire was to stop him freezing his nuts off on a cold November night....

Hi Ms Diddles

Warmth makes more sense to me than light, and perhaps no other fuel about.

[Ms Diddles]

It would have been cold enough fully dressed, with that broken window, Ms D. So while the killer may have stripped off to avoid the blood, and MJK may have stripped off to be ready for action, I think the fire would have been lit in any case, to warm their cockles.

I too find it hard not to accept Carrie Maxwell's account. She seemed to have no doubt that it was the murdered woman she spoke to that morning.

Time of death can still be notoriously difficult to nail down even today, and may rely to some extent on the last sighting of the person alive to indicate a maximum length of time the body could have remained undiscovered. At least the variables are now appreciated and taken into account when estimating a probable TOD, which was not the case in 1888.

Quite apart from any other factors, how many sets of human remains had the medics examined, that could have provided any useful comparison with the corpse and conditions in room 13?

Love,

Caz
X

Absolutely!

If time of death is difficult to ascertain today, how on earth were they meant to reach an accurate conclusion back in 1888?!

I find it hard to envision Jack emerging into the bustling Millers Court in broad daylight though.

Even if he had cleaned up and wasn't visibly covered in blood, it would still be very risky.

Perhaps I'm just conditioned to think of him skulking about in the shadows in the wee small hours though!

Whichever way I look at it things, I seem to come back to the point that I find Caroline Maxwell credible.

More so than a lot of the other witnesses.

She's corroborated by Lewis and the shopkeeper, and she refused to be swayed when put under pressure at the inquest.

Abberline vouches for her good character.

I believe her.

It's where that leads me that I struggle with!!!

[caz]

This is definitely in the realms of fanciful speculation, but perhaps Jack worked naked to avoid getting blood on his clothes.

The fire was to stop him freezing his nuts off on a cold November night....

It would have been cold enough fully dressed, with that broken window, Ms D. So while the killer may have stripped off to avoid the blood, and MJK may have stripped off to be ready for action, I think the fire would have been lit in any case, to warm their cockles.

I too find it hard not to accept Carrie Maxwell's account. She seemed to have no doubt that it was the murdered woman she spoke to that morning.

Time of death can still be notoriously difficult to nail down even today, and may rely to some extent on the last sighting of the person alive to indicate a maximum length of time the body could have remained undiscovered. At least the variables are now appreciated and taken into account when estimating a probable TOD, which was not the case in 1888.

Quite apart from any other factors, how many sets of human remains had the medics examined, that could have provided any useful comparison with the corpse and conditions in room 13?

Love,

Caz
X

[etenguy]

You're correct, I'm just speculating, nothing serious.
I drew the same conclusion as you, but I wondered if the fact Maxwell also saw a man - short, but a little taller than me (Maxwell), with dark clothes and a plaid (plain?) coat.
Could the police have suspected this might have been the killer?, if so there is a parallel to the Lawende situation.

I'm not pushing it, it's a stretch, I just can't dismiss it out of hand.

If not the police sequestrating Maxwell, there could be a number of reasons she did not bump into someone she may have confused with MJK - so it cannot be dismissed as an option.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

I know you are speculating in order to try and make sense of this conundrum, but I think this unlikely. In Lawende, the police thought they had someone who could recognise the Murderer, in Maxwell they thought they had a mistaken witness.

You're correct, I'm just speculating, nothing serious.
I drew the same conclusion as you, but I wondered if the fact Maxwell also saw a man - short, but a little taller than me (Maxwell), with dark clothes and a plaid (plain?) coat.
Could the police have suspected this might have been the killer?, if so there is a parallel to the Lawende situation.

I'm not pushing it, it's a stretch, I just can't dismiss it out of hand.

[etenguy]

I'm slowly getting to my point, perhaps Maxwell was also sequestrated which is why she didn't realize her error, she wasn't living at home over the weekend prior to the inquest?

I guess it's not out of the question.

Hi Wickerman

I know you are speculating in order to try and make sense of this conundrum, but I think this unlikely. In Lawende, the police thought they had someone who could recognise the Murderer, in Maxwell they thought they had a mistaken witness.

[Wickerman]

Still with the 'mistaken identity' in mind.
We might think back to the City witness, Lawende. How do we know he was sequestrated away from the public?
Nothing was mentioned at the inquest, the vast majority of newspapers make no mention of it. In fact, if I recall it came as a bit of a surprise when it was first found out. It was another one of those minute, or trivia, that turned out to be interesting.
Only one newspaper mentioned the fact - the London Evening News.
In part we read:
"... the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about. One of the two detectives is Foster."

Isn't that also what they said about Hutchinson?, that two policemen had been assigned to him?

I'm slowly getting to my point, perhaps Maxwell was also sequestrated which is why she didn't realize her error, she wasn't living at home over the weekend prior to the inquest?

I've scoured all the BNA for newspapers who might have mentioned the sequestration of Lawende, and out of 18 pages - 213 listings, only one reported that fact. So, should we be surprised if none mentioned Maxwell being sequestrated?

I guess it's not out of the question.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
I still think its a massive coincidence that the Norfolk letter was sent from Maxwells address, I am suspicious by nature,

[Wickerman]

We are led to believe Maxwell saw Kelly regularly, so if the woman she saw was not Kelly, but she saw this woman regularly, then what happened to this Lizzie Albrook, or whomever the woman was she saw. It would seem Maxwell couldn't have seen this woman over that weekend or she would have realized her error before the inquest.
Isn't that likelyhood alone sufficient cause to reject at least Lizzie Albrook as a possible candidate?
But the same caution is applicable to this other mysterious woman, who doesn't seem to appear anymore.

I'm playing devils advocate here because like I said, mistaken identity is all I can come up with, but these points argue against it.
I guess this is why the subject is left on the shelf, there just isn't a satisfactory solution.

[richardnunweek]

Yes, but if Maxwell had realized her mistake, how would we know?
Is she likely to go running to a newspaper?

On reflection, as this error took place Friday morning, and Maxwell gave her testimony on Monday afternoon. Surely she is likely to have realized her mistake in three days?

She obviously did not as she swore on oath,
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Hi,
Maxwell claimed to have often seen her about the lodging house/house's . We know that Kelly frequented them , as there is an account from people there, that she was always telling a sob story to get money to pay her rent , but it went on drink, , Also we know that another young woman who lived in the court Lizzie Albrook worked in the lodging houses in Dorset street, so could have mistaken the two, albeit surely she would have realised that mistake, if she saw that person after. Like the inquest for instance,
Regards Richard.

Yes, but if Maxwell had realized her mistake, how would we know?
Is she likely to go running to a newspaper?

On reflection, as this error took place Friday morning, and Maxwell gave her testimony on Monday afternoon. Surely she is likely to have realized her mistake in three days?