Mary Jane was murdered between 09.00 and 10.30 am

[mpriestnall]

It maybe for some - it was Morris Lewis who described Kelly as "short". This was captured in the Lloyds Weekly News of 11th Nov.
"She was short, stout & dark, and stood about 5ft 3in"

Kelly looks short (maybe), sturdy, and dark haired as depicted on the front cover of The Illustrated Police News, Saturday November17, 1888.

[etenguy]

Has anyone actually pictured someone leaving that room in broad daylight...almost certainly covered in blood...and not being seen by anyone?

Hi Michael

Came across this and according to the Evening News, as reported on 12 November, it is possible somebody did see him -

A POSSIBLE CLUE
On Saturday afternoon a gentleman engaged in business in the vicinity of the murder gave what is the only approach to a possible clue that has yet been brought to light. He states that he was walking through Mitre square at about ten minutes past ten on Friday morning, when a tall, well dressed man, carrying a parcel under his arm, and rushing along in a very excited manner, ran plump into him. The man's face was covered with blood splashes, and his collar and shirt were also bloodstained. The gentleman did not at the time know anything of the murder.

Of course, this could be unconnected - but well dressed man carrying a parcel under his arm also appears in the description given by George Hutchinson as the man he saw with MJK the morning of the murder.

[Marie Jeanette Davies]

It maybe for some - it was Morris Lewis who described Kelly as "short". This was captured in the Lloyds Weekly News of 11th Nov.
"She was short, stout & dark, and stood about 5ft 3in"

Is it possible Morris Lewis was describing Maxwell?

[Curious Cat]

Something that goes against Caroline Maxwell being mistaken on Mary Kelly's identity is that she also knew Joe Barnett. Mary and Joe had been together since the previous Easter and were apparently known as a pair by others. Maxwell mentions that she thought Mary received monies from her companion. I don't believe she interpreted the relationship as one of prostitute and client but rather that Joe paid Mary as an act of helping her out as a partner would. She seems surprised to learn that Mary might have been a prostitute to earn money given she was aware of Joe's payments to Mary which would have been intended to go towards food and rent.

My feeling is, going by how long they were together and how familiar people were of either of them, that knowing Joe wouldn't necessarily mean knowing Mary too but if someone knew or was aware of Mary they would automatically know who Joe is. As Maxwell says she knew both Mary and Joe, and Joe could easily dispute this if it wasn't possible, then it makes her mistaking someone else for Mary Kelly on that morning harder to account for. Mistaking an individual on their own is obviously quite possible. But to mistake an individual you are able to attach to another individual you're familiar with? That's much more difficult to reconcile. Just because Maxwell didn't speak with Mary much before that morning she would have known her enough by sight to be aware of who she was. As Mary also appears to have known Maxwell for each to refer to one another by name - at least according to Maxwell's account.

Which leads us to a secondary reason for Maxwell not to have been mistaken. For Maxwell it was unusual to see Mary at that time of the day. She must've been used to seeing Mary at a much later time during the course of the day or just simply not at all when she was about at that time in the morning. It would've been a fairly routine occurrence for Maxwell to be up and about in Dorset Street at that time in the morning and going to sort out some breakfast to bring back for her and her husband. Seeing Mary in the street at that time would have been an unusual event for Maxwell if it wasn't part of her typical morning routine. It's what draws Maxwell to approach Mary and express her surprise at seeing her. Maxwell then goes to west to get the breakfast and returns to Dorset Street from the Crispin Street end. She sees Mary talking to a man further along outside The Britannia pub from about the same spot she left Mary 20-30 minutes earlier. Maxwell doesn't mention the street being busy at that time so perhaps it was easy to pick out someone she had only spoken to barely 30 minutes before now being further up the street. Again, it being unusual to see Mary at that time of day in that location would stick out to Maxwell.

The woman seen by Caroline Maxwell is who she knew to be with Joe Barnett. To say at the inquest that she also knew Joe Barnett means knowing both him and the woman she saw together. If the woman wasn't Mary Kelly then Caroline Maxwell would've mistaken her twice over, once as an individual and again as the partner of Joe Barnett. How does that happen when the initial interaction between them is prompted by the unusual circumstances of them meeting? The woman must be distinct to Maxwell in one way or another. By the time Maxwell gives her story to the press it's well known that Joe Barnett was the dead woman's most recent long time partner. This would surely solidify the identity of the woman she spoke to that morning in her mind.

There's no wonder why Caroline Maxwell defiantly sticks to her version of events and insists she saw Mary Kelly. Maybe she really did see Mary Kelly.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael

I would think he was seen, possibly with some blood on him but he may have protected himself from being drenched in blood. I would guess people simply ignored him as one in a crowd of people - he would have left before anyone knew a murder had taken place.

If the previous murders were potentially blood soaked then this one surely was. I cant see any way he wouldnt have been virtually covered in it, unless he brought a cloth and cleaned himself before leaving then took the cloth with him. He didnt take any laundry apparently, nor Marys clothing.

[The Rookie Detective]

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

[etenguy]

Hi All

In an old computer file, I found reference to an analysis of the Doctors' evidence regarding MJK's time of death and the testimony of witnesses which seems to take account of all factors surrounding MJK's death. I must have reviewed this before but had forgotten. The report seems to be a serious academic paper and comes to the conclusion quoted below (my bold). The link to the full report is

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4118183

The citation is:
COBO, JULIO M. and COBO ENRIQUEZ DE LUNA, MARIA ENRIQUETA, Jack "the Ripper": Fixing the Hour of His ( Probably) Last Murder. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4118183 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4118183

Taking into account all the testimonies analyzed in this study, we presume that the hour of the murder must be placed at some point much later than that the one that has been postulated. Given the damage inflicted on the corpse of the victim, we estimate that the murderer, who in previous crimes had already shown great speed in accessing and removing the viscera, spent about twenty to thirty minutes in the room to carry all of them out. Therefore, knowing the hour of discovery of the murder, and the hour that the victim was seen alive for the last time, we can place the hour of death between a quarter past nine and a quarter to ten a.m. November 9th. 1888. We may consider this data important, beyond its purely academic curiosity, due to the peculiar characteristics it presents concerning victimology and other criminalistic aspects: The Geographical, Psychological, Behavioural, and, especially, Temporal profiling of the killer, compared to some other previous crimes attributed to and, almost certainly (in at least three cases), also committed by him. These characteristics, in all probability related to some specific pathological mental state, might help professionals who, in the future would try to approach this infamous character from a scientific point of view, trying to complete a psychiatric/psychological portrait and/or a criminological profile in a more or less definitive way.

Do you find this analysis compelling and hence accept the conclusion?

[Aethelwulf]

Hi All

In an old computer file, I found reference to an analysis of the Doctors' evidence regarding MJK's time of death and the testimony of witnesses which seems to take account of all factors surrounding MJK's death. I must have reviewed this before but had forgotten. The report seems to be a serious academic paper and comes to the conclusion quoted below (my bold). The link to the full report is

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4118183

The citation is:
COBO, JULIO M. and COBO ENRIQUEZ DE LUNA, MARIA ENRIQUETA, Jack "the Ripper": Fixing the Hour of His ( Probably) Last Murder. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4118183 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4118183




Do you find this analysis compelling and hence accept the conclusion?

Hi Eten, I think the author of this paper posted his findings on here a while ago (within the last year). I suppose a key question is how much can we rely on modern experts intepreting old reports? Like the surgical skill angle as well. It is difficult to dismiss maxwell. How can she be wrong? I don't really have an issue with the later time, we know JtR was a risk taker. Although it has been suggested Farmer's attacker was identifed, I don't beleive that was the case from threads on here and Forums. The man was never caught. The pick up time and attack time wouldn't be that different, nor the later pick up of Chapman. All he'd have need to do is check his hands and general appearance for blood, quick look out of the broken window to see the coast is clear and leave. The man that attacked farmer walked clear out of a common room and was outside before the alarm was raised. Had he been successful I suspect there would have just been general thoughts of a man leaving but nothing specific.

That said, I still favour the ~3.30 am ToD.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Elamarna]

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.

We have reports after that time, it's simply do we accept those or not?
The main point here is that the methods used to suggest a TOD in 1888, cannot on a scientific basis exclude a later TOD.

Myself I still prefer one around 4am.
But I will not exclude the possibility of a later one because it does not fit neatly with the standard view.

[The Rookie Detective]

We have reports after that time, it's simply do we accept those or not?
The main point here is that the methods used to suggest a TOD in 1888, cannot on a scientific basis exclude a later TOD.

Myself I still prefer one around 4am.
But I will not exclude the possibility of a later one because it does not fit neatly with the standard view.

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.

[Abby Normal]

maxwell reminds me alot of mortimer. nosy busy body that wants their 15 minutes of fame. obsfucates more than enlightens.
she had the wrong "mary". probably saw someone who she thought was Mary.

[etenguy]

We have reports after that time, it's simply do we accept those or not?
The main point here is that the methods used to suggest a TOD in 1888, cannot on a scientific basis exclude a later TOD.

Myself I still prefer one around 4am.
But I will not exclude the possibility of a later one because it does not fit neatly with the standard view.

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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?

.

It was Catherine Pickett who knocked on Mary's door Michael. But your point is a very valid one .

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

If Jack killed Mary at say between nine and ten in the morning. The cry of Murder at around 4 am , in-between the two Doctor's death estimates was entirely coincidental even though Sarah Lewis thought it came from the direction of Mary's room,and Elizabeth Prater thought it was somewhere in the court also.

When Catherine Pickett went banging on Mary's door at 7 30 in the morning, she wasn't dead, just asleep or out and about, even though nobody saw her out and about at that time and if the knocking did wake Mary up, she then got dressed , went out and got herself some ale, drunk it, threw it up, ate some fish and potatoes, possibly had to cook the meal all in an hour with the horrors of drink on her. But nobody saw her going out, probably buying the ale and then throwing it back up. Nobody saw Mary bringing a client back just before nine as well, even though I am assuming the streets would be rather busy at that time, including her landlord or his assistant who probably would have asked her for his weekly rent . Nobody saw Mary from the court put her hand through the broken window either, though said window leads directly on to the court. And the killer must have been really in luck because nobody saw him leave Mary's room half an hour later or so in broad daylight.

Abberline's perfectly plausible explanation of the remains of the ladies clothing in the grate being burnt to give the killer light must have been wrong as well since the murderer wouldn't need that light at ten in the morning.

Mrs Maxwell was interviewed on the ninth, and yet because her testimony disagreed wholly with what the police thought, the Police would surely have asked around but didn't find anybody else to testify on the twelve to back the timing of her death [mid morning], three days later even though say, Maria Harvey testified without really adding anything to when Mary was killed.

Maurice Lewis who also allegedly saw Mary even later is even more dubious. He saw Mary in a pub drinking with some people.Who were these people ? And why didn't any of them come forward . And if he was telling the truth the killer must have worked at the speed of light to get Mary back to her room unseen and then cut her up and leave all within forty five mins.

Methinks otherwise

Regards Darryl