Caroline Maxwell and identification

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jon,
You are right in suggesting that the locals were initially confused who exactly was murdered, and gossip soon spread.
Even some years later, some did not even know where Kelly was killed, and they were locals.
But in Maxwell we had a witness that
A] Was interviewed by the police ,Abberline himself was reported to have said''I could not break the woman''..her positive account was repeated at the inquest.
B] She reportedly identified clothing she saw Kelly wearing, and these items were found in the room.
She clearly was describing Mary Jane, albeit she could have seen her wearing these items at any time previous.
So despite the many false accounts circulating , she in no doubt was describing the woman who was lying on a bed in room 13.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

...
But in Maxwell we had a witness that
A] Was interviewed by the police ,Abberline himself was reported to have said''I could not break the woman''..her positive account was repeated at the inquest.

Hi Richard.
I agree, the police would naturally make every effort to 'test' the story of a witness. Note the same approach with both John Richardson and Geo. Hutchinson, especially when the story is so controversial the police will obviously try to break the story.
As in the other cases, this witness Maxwell, was also quite certain, but so was Mary Malcolm in the Stride case.

B] She reportedly identified clothing she saw Kelly wearing, and these items were found in the room.

Have you pursued this argument?
Maxwell said that Kelly wore - a dark skirt, a velvet bodice, and a knitted maroon shawl.

What was found in the room?
In one news report we read:
"...discovered in the fireplace the charred rim and wirework of a woman's felt hat, as well as a piece of burnt velvet. These, no doubt, formed a portion of a hat and velvet jacket belonging to and worn by Kelly, which are missing."

Maria Harvey said she left a crepe bonnet with Kelly, yet Abberline retrieved what he described as the wire frame of a felt hat?
Maxwell said Kelly wore a velvet bodice, and Abberline did retrieve a piece of burnt velvet - so no bodice was found in the room.

Have you compiled a list of items of clothing found in the room?
I only ask because you seem to be sure the clothes suggested by Maxwell were found in the room, yet I don't see this as being ascertained.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jon,
With regard to the Velvet, according to the Times Nov 12, the velvet burnt was the victims Velvet jacket.
According to a report Kelly used to wear a black jacket[ velvet].
It would appear that the bonnet was burnt along with the jacket, according to the police ''Because they were bloodstained''?
I have often attempted to estimate how these items became bloodstained, and why they were actually burnt..
It is a absolute shame that no inventory is available to us, I am sure one originally existed.
The problem is over the years, one picks up a mixture of oral history, embedded with assumed fact, and it is hard to deceiver fact from fiction.
I have always formed the opinion that the clothing Maxwell claimed to have seen Mary wearing were found in the room. which would at least back up her sighting to a degree.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
With regard to the Velvet, according to the Times Nov 12, the velvet burnt was the victims Velvet jacket.
According to a report Kelly used to wear a black jacket[ velvet].

Hi Richard.
This report you mention that suggests Kelly "used to wear a black velvet jacket", might be from an American press report.

"The Kelly woman is described as tall, and not bad looking, dark complexioned, and generally wearing an old black velvet jacket. She was wearing this jacket this morning when about 8.15 she went down the court, jug in hand, and returned shortly afterwards with milk."
Boston Daily Globe, 10 Nov.

Which appears to have been sourced from the Morris Lewis story concerning an unidentified woman.

"Morris Lewis, a tailor, states that he was playing "pitch and toss" in the court at nine o'clock yesterday morning, and an hour before that he had seen the woman leave the house and return with some milk."

Interestingly, two days after the story by Morris Lewis was published, the Star wrote:

"...These, no doubt, formed a portion of a hat and velvet jacket belonging to and worn by Kelly, which are missing."
Star, 12 Nov.

Unfortunately, we have no statement prior to this, in the British press, which suggests Kelly wore a black velvet jacket. So the possibility does exist that Morris Lewis did include this detail in his story, and that it was picked up by the American press, but edited from the British press.
Even if this was the case, we are still left with the problem that Kelly was, medically speaking, already dead by the time Lewis saw this woman go for milk.
So we cannot say Kelly did wear a black velvet jacket, the idea appears to be based on the Lewis story of an unidentified woman.

Abberline is the source for what was found in the ashes, sadly he makes no mention of velvet. Which doesn't mean the press report is wrong, just that it would have been nice if it were confirmed by the principal source, Abberline himself.

It is a absolute shame that no inventory is available to us, I am sure one originally existed.

Yes, an inventory was taken by Abberline.

I have always formed the opinion that the clothing Maxwell claimed to have seen Mary wearing were found in the room. which would at least back up her sighting to a degree.

Well, your not the first to think this, and if someone else has unearthed a more detailed description of what Abberline found in the room we would all appreciate knowing about it.

[RivkahChaya]

One of the things that's come up a number of times in some of the studies I've been reading about memory, is that people are very bad at remembering where they acquired information, so if MJK often wore a particular piece of clothing, it's not surprising that Mrs. Maxwell remembered her wearing it that morning. Whether or not she actually saw Kelly, the chances are that she did not pay close attention to what she was wearing, unless it was the topic of conversation, and so was likely to describe clothes MJK usually wore, and not what she actually wore the last time Maxwell saw her.

One example in one book is that sometimes people who report a close family member missing will describe them the way they are accustomed to seeing them, and will forget a detail of their appearance they recently changed, like getting a short haircut, changing their hair color, or shaving off facial hair, even if the new look was a few weeks old. Part of it is emotional stress, but part of it is that the person's old appearance is stored in more "places" in the brain, ie, has more neural connections, and more memory triggers.

[richardnunweek]

Hi, Rivkah,
Memory is down to the individual , and the amount of observation one pays to a event or persons.
Memory fades over time to a degree, although if one keeps some significant point as a kick starter, that memory can live on.
I returned from holiday on the 4th Sept, and I can still vividly remember people , and events, without any difficulty,simply because I am a inquisitive sort, and I observe characteristics .
That might be the case for people like George Hutchinson, and Mrs Maxwell, and that time span was very recent .
Memory does not have to be as complex as some works on it depict.
Regards Richard,

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jon,
If one looks again at two observations one could look at a very different picture of events.
I have mentioned the police view that not only did this murder occur during daylight, but also certain articles of clothing were burnt, because they were ''bloodstained''.
We also have the report by Maurice Lewis, stating that he saw Kelly leave her room a round 8am, and return to it shortly after with milk..[ a report which is on par with Maxwell's sighting]
We also have the Lewis account, which seems to suggest that when he initially sighted Kelly she was wearing the jacket,[ as he was the only witness that made that milk observation, I make that assumption]
So we are then left with a possibility that suggests one of the two witnesses, ie Mr Lewis, or Mrs Maxwell, were been untruthful, as the clothing seen is vastly different.
If indeed the velvet jacket was burnt by the killer, and the police made the assumption that it was done so because of being bloodstained, then it is a fair bet that item was in close proximity to the body when the attack took place.
Either on the bed, or Kelly wearing it.
If the latter then it would give credence to Maurice Lewis's account.
If the Former ..ditto.
So we have the new scenario , that Mary Kelly was murdered in daylight, whilst either wearing a velvet jacket, or that item on the bed when it happened.
This would leave Mrs Maxwell's account out in the cold, and leaves the distinct possibility that she was mistaken ,or being untruthful.
We should also use the black jacket as a tool for sightings on the eve before.
Mrs Prater describes her wearing it at 9pm, yet Mrs Cox has her wearing different clothing less then three hours later..
Seeing that this item was mentioned a first thing in the morning , one could suggest that Mary Kelly went out on the eve of the 8th wearing her jacket, and returned home with Blotchy[ allegedly ] wearing it, and this was the item she put on to go out when Mr Lewis saw her in the morning.
But we are left with the major question?
Why did the killer go to the trouble to cut up the jacket and burn it, because they received bloodstains.?
How about the killer wanted to give the impression that Kelly was killed in the night, whilst in bed, and the jacket being soiled would suggest otherwise, like she was wearing it when attacked.
Regards Richard.

[sdreid]

Do we know if Barnett was asked about Maxwell as I think she claimed that she knew both him and Mary? I assume he was asked and confirmed her as an acquaintance otherwise we would have heard about that in attempts to debunk her story. If police didn't ask Barnett about Maxwell then they were negligent in their duty.

[RivkahChaya]

Hi, Rivkah,
Memory is down to the individual , and the amount of observation one pays to a event or persons.
Memory fades over time to a degree, although if one keeps some significant point as a kick starter, that memory can live on.
I returned from holiday on the 4th Sept, and I can still vividly remember people , and events, without any difficulty,simply because I am a inquisitive sort, and I observe characteristics .
That might be the case for people like George Hutchinson, and Mrs Maxwell, and that time span was very recent .
Memory does not have to be as complex as some works on it depict.
Regards Richard,

Have you ever had any of that independently verified? There was a study in the US about 15 years ago on where people actually were when they heard that Pres. Kennedy died-- a lot of people can swear they remember exactly where they were. It turned out that about 1/2 the people were dead wrong, and a lot more were wrong on many details. Some people remembered being on a vacation they'd actually taken a week before, other people remembered being at work, in an office they didn't occupy until a month later, but then used for the next ten years.

I once took a test to determine whether I had a good memory-- in other words, whether I was at the top of the bell curve. It turned out I was on the "superior" end, and that eliminated me from being a subject in a research study on improving memory using learned techniques, because I wouldn't be able to show enough improvement on the scale they were using. It was a study at my college, and paid $10 a session for two sessions a week for a couple of months, so I was bummed, actually.

Anyway, I still make all the kinds of errors that people normally make. I'm not sure if I'd remember the clothes the neighbor I talked to yesterday was wearing, as opposed to a previous time I talked to her, although there's one time I would remember, because she was wearing something someone gave her, that she didn't like, but she'd be at the party she was going to, and felt obligated to wear it, and we discussed it.

[C. F. Leon]

You may be onto something. If Maxwell thought Maria Harvey (or some other woman) was the occupant of the Miller's Court room it could explain that next morning sighting, especially if she mainly knew the woman by clothing and didn't see her face well, or if the woman had any sort of resemblance to Kelly (simliar build, hair the same color, etc). (Maybe she knew Kelly not by face so much as by the little boy and she saw a woman with the kid and assumed she was Kelly?)

Do we know just how many women were staying off and on with Kelly and have physical desrciptions of ANY of them?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Although it circulated that Kelly had a little boy staying with her, it has never been accepted as such.
It is not within the realms of possibility that people outside the actual court got confused to who the victim was, especially as the press got much of its reporting wrong.
It was quoted by the press that Barnett himself remarked on a little boy, but that appears to have got muddled.
Mrs Maxwell may have been one of those who was confused on identity, however although she may have initially been so,on the Friday, it is unlikely that she would have remained so adamant at the inquest, especially as she would have seen the victims common law there [ Barnett] and surely would have realized any mistake, as she claimed to have known the dead woman's fella.
And we should not forget she was grilled by no other then Abberline himself prior to the inquest, and surely was asked to describe the clothing she saw Kelly wearing at her sighting.
Although we have no knowledge, it is not without merit to suggest that she was asked to identify the body, in case she was mistaken, after all Hutchinson was asked to do just that on the Tuesday morning...
We should not forget that her statement was contradictory to the police doctors, and a identification of the body could have ruled out any error on her part.
Regards Richard.

[RivkahChaya]

Richard, a "false memory" is not a mistake. Thinking that Maria Harvey is MJK, and saying that you therefore saw MJK at 8am is not the same thing as having a false memory of seeing MJK at 8am. A false memory is not correctable, except to the extent that you can demonstrate to the person that the memory is false, and convince them that they somehow imagined what happened, or transposed events.

In the US, during the false abuse memory scandal in the late 1980s, and early 1990s, therapists all over the country managed to convince hundreds of women that they had been raped by their fathers. It usually began with the therapist showing the women checklists of the symptoms of post-abuse trauma, and when the women, who were all voluntarily in therapy for some reason, so they were at least vaguely dissatisfied with their lives, realized that they had many of the symptoms, they began, at the therapists urging to attend incest survivors support groups. There they heard other people's stories, and suddenly began to recover "repressed" memories. A lot of the women were then genuinely traumatized by the memories, but the memories were false. The checklists were vague, and said things like "Do you have trouble maintaining intimate relationships?" "Are you sometimes ashamed of your body?" "Do you startle easily?" "Do you feel depressed more often than other people?"

Unfortunately, some men actually went to prison of the basis of false memory accusations, and nothing else, no physical evidence at all (some states have a much longer statute of limitations for statutory rape than for rape 1, and extend the limitations further if the victim was a family member) because juries really, really don't want to give a guy who might have raped his daughter the benefit of the doubt. Other women, who didn't "remember" until after the statute of limitations had expired, sued in civil court, and won monetary settlements.

I don't know exactly what happened to make Caroline Maxwell think she saw MJK that morning, but there are other possibilities besides a simple mistake, and a deliberate lie. The ME getting the time of death wrong is one, but a false memory is another, and false memories are very easy to form, and then very hard to shake. (That the body was not MJK is also possible, but I personally consider that to be so unlikely it borders on impossible-- borders in the statistical sense.)

For people who do think Maxwell lied on purpose from the outset, what was her reason? I realize she may have made a mistake at first, then continued to lie to save face, rather than admit she was wrong, but I think most people don't believe that happened, as strongly as she was cautioned. So what motive would she have had for lying?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

"I don't know exactly what happened to make Caroline Maxwell think she saw MJK that morning, but there are other possibilities besides a simple mistake, and a deliberate lie."

She could be another Maria Coroner. Or she could refuse, by pride, to back down her story. I have a colleague who died last December, and when I learned some hours later that he died, the first thought that crossed my mind was "That's impossible, I just talked to him yesterday." A few days later, I thought about it, and i spoke to him a week before he died. The shock of the news made a jump in my memory. I certainly believe that the climate in Spitalfield in the past few weeks was stressful enough to create some strange memory association. This is purely speculative, of course.