was Mary Kelly really murdered

[miss c]

Hi there, this is my first message and i hope you will find my question worth responding to.

A major point of interest to me is the apparent sightings of Mary Jane Kelly after she was meant to have been murdered, i know there witnesses are often quickly dis credited or assumed to have been mistaken about either who they saw or when, but i wonder, as they can not be proven as correct they also cannot be proven to be wrong either. Does anyone agree that it is a possibility that Mary Kelly max not have been murdered and was saw by these witnesses. It has already been discussed that the mutilation of the victims face made for impossible positive identification so it max not have been her after all.
Miss c

[Phil H]

Hi miss c and welcome to these boards. I hope you enjoy your time here.

Your first question is certainly a vexed one.

There are at least three issues involved, as it seems to me:

a) were the witnesses mistaken in either their recollections or the timing of the event they reported:

b) if not how does that relate to the timing of the murder - could it have happened later than usually assumed; and

c) is it possible that the women killed in 13 Millers Court was not MJK but someone else, thus allowing the real MJK to be seen when she was supposedly dead?

All these questions have been debated at length, and you'll get the flavour of the discussions best by reading through the threads yourself.

I used the SEARCH function to find the following (under the Suspects/MJK heading and that of Witnesses) - and there may be more:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7020

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2820

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5306

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2820&highlight=Maxwell

For myself, I'm not sure there is an easy answer to your question.

Does one believe Mrs M or not? Did she get the day wronbg but the sighting right?

The easiest way through, if one assumes that Kelly was killed at an early hour, is to take it that Mrs M was wrong in some regard. Yet the police, who talked to her and looked her in the eye (as it were) let her testify at the inquest where she was interrogated and stuck to her story!

If one is open to "conspiracy" theories, then one might interpret the existing evidence in a different way - MJK was not the victim, she had found the body and appeared shaken because of what she had found... But that will not satisfy some (including me). Did someone pretend to be Mary - how well did Mrs Maxwell know the victim - could she have been mistaken (others apparently were about who MJK was).

Which leads on to the possibility that Mrs M was correct in all she said, but though X was MJK, when they were not.

Everything about the Millers Court killing is shrouded in mystery. MJK herself is an enigma - she has never been identified in the census or other records - how true was the story Barnett told? Was Kelly her real name? What was going on in Millers Court before and during the murder? How are we to interpret her comings and goings on the night before her body was found.

It is not, in my view, impossible that Kelly WAS seen, and died subsequently, but that involves some problematic questions about medical evidence and time of death.

Sorry that I can provide no answers and just more questions, but I hope that what I have written will demonstrate that you have, in your first post, put your finger on a key issue in this whole case.

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

A couple of rhetorical questions.

Why might Mrs Maxwell have been mistaken?

She evidently saw MJK on the morning of Friday 9th November and gave her first official witness statement to that effect later the same day.

Also, if, because of contrary medical evidence, she was believed by the police to have been mistaken, why three days later was she summoned to appear at the inquest, only to throw an evidential spanner in the works?

Regards,

Simon

[DRoy]

Miss C,

Welcome to the boards!

Maxwell said she only talked to Mary a couple times so in my opinion she probably got the person wrong rather than the date. You'll find that MJK had many fabrigated stories about her after her death. This is mostly due to misidentification. I personally believe that Maxwell had the best intention when testifying but she must have had the wrong person.

Maxwell is the strongest witness to Mary being alive later than the doctors said. If you take her out of the equation then you only have Maurice Lewis.

I don't necessarily accept the coroner's time of death as it would have been difficult for them to be so certain in 1888 and because of the circumstances surrounding her death. However, I don't believe she was walking around the morning of the 9th either.

Simon,

I believe I answered your question.

Cheers
DRoy

[Simon Wood]

Hi DRoy,

Not quite.

Given medical opinion at the time, why didn't the cops conclude she'd got the wrong person on the right date?

Her inquest appearance has yet to be satisfactorily explained.

Regards,

Simon

[DRoy]

Simon,

Given medical opinion at the time, why didn't the cops conclude she'd got the wrong person on the right date?

Who says they didn't? The inquest's purpose was to establish the cause of death. Thats it. Not who was lying, who was mistaken, etc. By concluding the cause of death they did their duty.

That being said, even the Coroner wasn't satisfied with her testimony. Since the Coroner already knew what Maxwell was going to say hence him warning her before testifying, it must have been the subject of the doctors and the police prior. That is made obvious by the newspaper accounts which unanimously state she was mistaken.

Cheers
DRoy

[Simon Wood]

Hi DRoy,

If the cops did conclude she'd got the wrong person on the right date, then why admit her mistaken and, on the face of it, worthless evidence?

The jury's verdict was a straightforward "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."

They could have easily reached the same verdict without Mrs. Maxwell and the Coroner's words of warning, which makes her appearance at the inquest even more inexplicable.

Regards,

Simon

[DRoy]

Simon,

They still would have had to have her attend the inquest as she was claiming something different. The police and the doctor's could have established the verdict on their own with no witnesses but they still have to go through the motions regardless of whether they seem redundant or not. That's law.

Regardless, it's pretty apparent nobody accepted her version. If you can find a contemporary story that does, I'd love to see it.

Cheers
DRoy

[Simon Wood]

Hi DRoy,

I'm not necessarily suggesting Mrs. Maxwell was right.

Given events, I'm just wondering why she was allowed to be so publically wrong.

Regards,

Simon

[DRoy]

Simon,

Given events, I'm just wondering why she was allowed to be so publically wrong.

I think I explained that Simon. That is the point of the inquest, establish how she died. Maxwell had something to add that could have affected the decision. That's why she was there.

DRoy

[Phil H]

Well, miss c, you'll now appreciate why I wrote "Your first question is certainly a vexed one"!

Phil

[Wickerman]

Does one believe Mrs M or not? Did she get the day wronbg but the sighting right?

Maxwell was questioned on the same day that she had the sighting.
So because it was the same day, how could she get it wrong?



.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
Realistically there are two explanations for Maxwell's version .
1] Mary Kelly was killed at around 9am
2]She mistook Lizzie Albrook for her.
Version one goes against medical opinion, although that was hardly accurate .
Version two , would surely have been known by Maxwell within a few days.
The police believed that Mary was killed in daylight[Times Nov 12] that is most likely the reason why Mrs Maxwell was asked to attend the inquest, and to give evidence which was in contrast to their own doctors opinion.
The maroon shawl which Maxwell described Kelly wearing that morning was found in room 13, which would suggest that a mistake in identity was not made.
Kelly being 'around' at least one Dorset street lodging house[ as mentioned by Maxwell] was confirmed by a press reports of Mary obtaining money from residents using the ''feel sorry for me '' approach.
The only other explanation has a speculative ring about it, it involves Mrs M lying in order to protect someone who may have been involved, and this uses the 14, Dorset street letter[ Maxwell's address] as its foundation.
My view is that Mrs Maxwell either saw Mary Kelly as stated, or she was lying not for five minutes of fame, but to protect someone.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

Wickerman

My original response to the first post simply asked questions and sought to 8indicate why this issue has been so hotly debated over the years, here and elsewhere.

I think I would have been wrong to suggest that there is no problem, no controversy. Indeed, I lack the certainty of some of my fellow posters on these issues. Some of you may well be right in assuming that the explanation is simple and straightforward. It is an attractive way out. But not everyone, I think, shares that view. So I strove for a balance.

On the question of Mrs M being interviewed soon after her meeting with "MJK", I can only suggest that mistakes can still be made (of various times) or the whole thing could (I do NOT assert this) have been contrived out of whole cloth. I do not know what is right - thus I responded to miss c with what I hoped would be a summary of the situation as I recollected it, seeking not to counsel a new poster (of what level of knowledge or expertise in the case I knew not) down any one path.

Are you saying that was wrong?

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Well, miss c, you'll now appreciate why I wrote "Your first question is certainly a vexed one"!

Phil

Hello Phil C

Bang on. Well played.

Hello Miss C,

Welcome to the boards.

You have struck upon one of THE most intruing points of discussion in the case. Many different views there will be i assure you!

Enjoy!


Phil