Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

You are not alone in suggesting a later time of death is unlikely, but I do struggle to dismiss Maxwell's statement as either

a) she was lying - there is no reason to think she was lying, in fact she was described as a credible witness and not someone seeking any type of attention or fame.
b) she was mistaken - I find this unlikely, the time of the first sighting was established by her husband's movements give or take 15 minutes, and she states she spoke to Mary by name and Mary replied using Maxwell's name. The second sighting at the pub is more open to error given the distance and no interaction, though she recognised the same outfit (which also matched the clothes in MJK's room) - so quite a coincidence if it was a mistake.

On the surface, Caroline Maxwell is a good witness with an anchored statement and the only reason to doubt her is the TOD provided by the doctors (and TOD is not an exact science and the doctors did not agree with each other).

hi eten
i dont think she was lying, just mistaken. I think who she thought was mary, was not. she didnt even know tje woman who she thought was mary very well.

[Wickerman]

I took it that the reporter misheard 'ears' for 'hair', and I suspect many others believe that too.
Her hair was her most defining feature, yet Kelly is supposed to have had something like a false tooth?, I can't remember the quote exactly but it reads like another defining feature, whether false teeth or an overbite, something of that nature.
I'm surprised Barnet didn't mention it, whatever it was. The whole face was normally exposed for viewing in a mortuary, the body being completely wrapped.

I think the problem with identifying the body with a known Mary Kelly is, the name she used was not her true name. Whatever Barnet's girlfriend's name was, it wasn't Mary Kelly, at least not on her birth certificate.

[etenguy]

There are a few people who question whether the body found in 13 Miller's Court was that of the woman known as Mary Jane Kelly. If the estimated TOD is accurate and Caroline Maxwell's testimony is also accurate, that would support questioning the identity of the body.

The body was identified by Joseph Barnett who testified:

I have seen the body, and I identify it by the ear and eyes, which are all that I can recognise; but I am positive it is the same woman I knew.

I question whether Joseph Barnett could have identified the body from the eyes, since by the time he saw the body they would have clouded over (see below which explains the changes to the eyes after death (http://www.myhealth.gov.my/en/early-...f%20the%20eyes.)

Changes to the eyes can be seen by testing the reflexes of the pupils and cornea of the eye. After death, there are no reflexes of the pupils to light and the cornea also loses its reflex. The cornea of the deceased also become cloudy after two hours of death. Besides that, the pressure in the eyes start to decrease and the eyeballs become flaccid before they sink into the orbits of the eyes.

That leaves the ears. I'm not sure I could recognise someone from their ears unless there was something striking about them (a deformity, a scar etc..). Was there something striking about MJK's ears?

[etenguy]

If I recall, Maxwell mentioned a maroon shawl and a velvet bodice, I don't recall those being listed among Kelly's things?
Shawls & bodices must have been quite common enough.

Hi Wickerman

Apologies, to say they matched is overstating the case, point taken. And you may be right that her outfit was quite common. But the description of what was found in the room does not contradict Maxwell's description.

At the inquest, Maxwell described MJK's outfit as:
A dark skirt, a velvet body (assume that is a bodice), a maroon shawl, and no hat.

The Times reported on 12 November
The police, on making a more minute search of the room in which the body was found, on Saturday morning discovered in the fireplace the charred rim and wirework of a woman's felt hat, as well as a piece of burnt velvet.

In addition, as DJA kindly pointed out:

Mary Ann Cox mentioned Mary wearing a red pelerine when entering 13 with Blotchy.

Depending on the shade, maroon is a shade of red (it can also be a shade of purple), so again, this does not contradict Maxwell's description.

The description of her outfit, though, while supportive, is not the main reason to believe Maxwell was not mistaken. The fact that she had a conversation with Mary Jane, someone she knew - if not very well, at a time she can corroborate by events (her husband returning from work) makes a mistake the least likely explanation, IMHO.

[DJA]

Mary Ann Cox mentioned Mary wearing a red pelerine when entering 13 with Blotchy.

[Wickerman]

Hi Abby

You are not alone in suggesting a later time of death is unlikely, but I do struggle to dismiss Maxwell's statement as either

a) she was lying - there is no reason to think she was lying, in fact she was described as a credible witness and not someone seeking any type of attention or fame.
b) she was mistaken - I find this unlikely, the time of the first sighting was established by her husband's movements give or take 15 minutes, and she states she spoke to Mary by name and Mary replied using Maxwell's name. The second sighting at the pub is more open to error given the distance and no interaction, though she recognised the same outfit (which also matched the clothes in MJK's room) - so quite a coincidence if it was a mistake.

If I recall, Maxwell mentioned a maroon shawl and a velvet bodice, I don't recall those being listed among Kelly's things?
Shawls & bodices must have been quite common enough.

[etenguy]

walk back from the pub, stoke up large fire, murder and extensively mutilate her, burn cloths and leave without anyone seeing him? by 9:30? lol right.

Hi Abby

You are not alone in suggesting a later time of death is unlikely, but I do struggle to dismiss Maxwell's statement as either

a) she was lying - there is no reason to think she was lying, in fact she was described as a credible witness and not someone seeking any type of attention or fame.
b) she was mistaken - I find this unlikely, the time of the first sighting was established by her husband's movements give or take 15 minutes, and she states she spoke to Mary by name and Mary replied using Maxwell's name. The second sighting at the pub is more open to error given the distance and no interaction, though she recognised the same outfit (which also matched the clothes in MJK's room) - so quite a coincidence if it was a mistake.

On the surface, Caroline Maxwell is a good witness with an anchored statement and the only reason to doubt her is the TOD provided by the doctors (and TOD is not an exact science and the doctors did not agree with each other).

[miakaal4]

Well by 10.30 anyway. He managed to elude all at Mitre Square in less time and in a place with only 3 exits. A quick peep out of the window and gone from Millers Ct doesn't seem any trickier.

[Wickerman]

Maybe it was thick fog, like pea soup....

[Abby Normal]

Hear what you're saying above guys, but it still is in doubt. How much were the docs influenced by "probably"? The Maxwell evidence is not proved as mistaken. And considering the audacity of the Eddowes murder I would not be surprised if JtR got MJK in the morning around 09.00. Done by 09.30.

walk back from the pub, stoke up large fire, murder and extensively mutilate her, burn cloths and leave without anyone seeing him? by 9:30? lol right.

[Wickerman]

I would say that applies to other killings too though. Eddowes 4-8 minutes? Improbable, but the statements and facts say it's true.

Not necessarily.
If the couple in Duke St. are not Eddowes & the killer, then the time window is greater, maybe 12-14 minutes. This was the time Watkins estimated for him to do his beat. So, if Watkins arrived at Mitre Sq. at 1.44, as he claimed, then he might have left 12-14 minutes earlier, minus the time it takes for him to circle the square. However, PC Harvey estimated he was at the end of Church Passage at 18 or 19 minutes to 2:00am.
So, the killer might have had 11-12 minutes, max. from Watkins leaving the square at 1:30, to Harvey appearing at the end of the passage at 1:41-2.
It must be borne in mind, both officers were estimating.

Both Insp. McWilliam & Swanson admitted the evidence of identification was weak as the three Jewish witnesses had not seen the woman's face.

[miakaal4]

I would say that applies to other killings too though. Eddowes 4-8 minutes? Improbable, but the statements and facts say it's true.

[Wickerman]

Because we lack so many critical facts, much of what we talk about must be measured in 'degrees of probability'. And, although a late Friday morning murder is not impossible, given other professional opinions, it is improbable.

[miakaal4]

Hear what you're saying above guys, but it still is in doubt. How much were the docs influenced by "probably"? The Maxwell evidence is not proved as mistaken. And considering the audacity of the Eddowes murder I would not be surprised if JtR got MJK in the morning around 09.00. Done by 09.30.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Tissue drying out (your bacon breakfast), is not what Rigor Mortis is.
Rigor is the result (among other things) of a buildup of lactic acid. The same acid that causes cramp in muscles when you exercise.

Remember, your bacon/ham has already been entirely drained of blood. MJK lost blood certainly, but the body had not been hung & drained as meat is for the consumer. The muscle & tissue was still wet with blood so would take much longer to dry out as compared with the example you offered.

Bacon and Ham also have water added, which evaporates once outside the packaging. And added salt. Not a great comparison that one.

Rigor and TOD. The bane of the Ripperology.