MJK's Body Identification?

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Packers,

Yes, I agree, it's far more likely that the meal was consumed in the evening, and your point about street vendors selling fish and chips in the evening, but not the morning, is well made.

I have little doubt the Maxwell believed the woman she spoke to was Kelly but, of course, that doesn't necessarily mean she was correct!

Hutchinson is an intriguing witness. I think he most likely lied, but I just can't rule him out completely, i.e. because Abberline believed him initially-and he was in a far stronger position than anyone today to assess the credibility of Hutchinson's story-and there's always the possibility, however slim, that he exaggerated rather than lied.

You can think that you spoke to a person on a certain morning and be mistaken about which morning it was. If we consider the "zoo" that it undoubtedly became in the neighborhood around Miller's Court in the hours and days after the body was discovered, it would have been a confusing situation, to the extent that a local person might well have made an error as to exactly when they thought they had last encountered Kelly. Also consider that the witness would have been anxious to contribute something useful to the investigation or to the inquest and perhaps not in fact have been as certain about their recollection as their testimony might make them appear.

Best regards

Chris

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

"You can think that you spoke to a person on a certain morning and be mistaken about which morning it was."

This is unlikely. Caroline Maxwell was first interviewed by police on the day in question.

See original witness statements, 9th November 1888.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;374465]

However, if Lewis and Maxwell's evidence is to be accepted

Hi John,

What is the value of the Lewis-sources? The value of the Lewis-sources is low. They consist only of contradictory newspapers.

They give "a woman", "a house", "the deceased", and "the house".

We do not have a sufficient reason to interpret "a woman" in the texts as being Mary Jane Kelly and "the house" as being her room. There is no reliability, since the sources differ.

And what about the sighting of Kelly at the pub? It is useless. Here it is in The Times:

"A tailor named Lewis says he saw Kelly come out about 8 o'clock yesterday morning and go back. Another statement is to the effect that Kelly was seen in a public-house known as the Ringers at the corner of Dorset-street and Commercial-street, about 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and that she met there her lover, Barnet (sic) and had a glass of beer with him. This statement is also not substantiated.

What does "another statement" mean? We can not know this.

So both of these "statements" in the diverse newspapers are of no reliability.

What then is the value of the Maxwell-sources?

The value of those sources, being contradictory newspaper articles, are low.

But the value of those sources, being inquest papers are high. They are produced under oath. The value of the papers from the police investigation on the 9th is also rather high. That is, the reliability is high. We can know that this is what the police wrote.

But the validity of these reliable sources is low, since the sources have a tendency. So they can not be used for drawing any conclusions about whether Kelly was alive or not at eight or nine o´clock in the morning.

The first thing we have to do, if we would like to get knowledge, is to sort out irrelevant sources.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;374498]

Hi John,

What is the value of the Lewis-sources? The value of the Lewis-sources is low. They consist only of contradictory newspapers.

They give "a woman", "a house", "the deceased", and "the house".

We do not have a sufficient reason to interpret "a woman" in the texts as being Mary Jane Kelly and "the house" as being her room. There is no reliability, since the sources differ.

And what about the sighting of Kelly at the pub? It is useless. Here it is in The Times:

"A tailor named Lewis says he saw Kelly come out about 8 o'clock yesterday morning and go back. Another statement is to the effect that Kelly was seen in a public-house known as the Ringers at the corner of Dorset-street and Commercial-street, about 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and that she met there her lover, Barnet (sic) and had a glass of beer with him. This statement is also not substantiated.

What does "another statement" mean? We can not know this.

So both of these "statements" in the diverse newspapers are of no reliability.

What then is the value of the Maxwell-sources?

The value of those sources, being contradictory newspaper articles, are low.

But the value of those sources, being inquest papers are high. They are produced under oath. The value of the papers from the police investigation on the 9th is also rather high. That is, the reliability is high. We can know that this is what the police wrote.

But the validity of these reliable sources is low, since the sources have a tendency. So they can not be used for drawing any conclusions about whether Kelly was alive or not at eight or nine o´clock in the morning.

The first thing we have to do, if we would like to get knowledge, is to sort out irrelevant sources.

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Yes, I would tend to agree with you. In the case of Lewis' evidence, as you correctly point out, all we have is a few newspaper articles, and certainly no indication that the police ever took him seriously as a witness. And, of course, he wasn't called to give evidence at the inquest.

Regarding Maxwell. I think that she genuinely believed that she'd spoken to Kelly, at least initially, otherwise she would probably not have admitted to such a tenuous association, i.e. amounting to just two brief conversations. She may, however, have subsequently had doubts, but was unwilling to recant, i.e. because she didn't want to appear foolish or be accused of wasting police time. Nonetheless, Baxter's comments at the inquest illustrate some of the problems with her testimony, as do other factors which I have referred to in earlier posts.

What is also revealing is that Maxwell is reported as stating that Kelly had a speech impediment:"She spoke with a kind of impediment." (Daily News, 10th November). However, what is interesting is that no other witness, as far as I'm aware, mentioned this. Of course, this reinforces the argument that Maxwell confused Kelly with someone else, however, she may also have been relying, somewhat inaccurately, on local gossip: Joseph Barnett supposedly had a speech impediment, so she may have got him mixed up with Kelly!

[John G]

I would add that Maurice lewis was playing in the court at 10:00am, then went to the ringers where he claimed to have seen mary.

At 10:45 Bowyer discovered her mutilated body in her room.

how long does it take to get from millers court to the ringers?

and mary is supposed to go from drinking in the ringers, picking up her killer to walking back to her place, get murdered and mutilated and then discovered by Bowyer in less than 45 minutes?

yeah right. Maurice lewis is even less credible then Maxwell.
Useless witness.

Hi Abby,

For completeness, the Morning Advertiser, 10 November 1888 also reports that, "Morris (sic) 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 saw the woman leave the house and return with some milk."

Of course, this account makes no mention of Lewis speaking to the woman and, as you rightly point out, he could easily have got her mixed up with Maxwell, i e. because she also went to get some milk after 8:00am. Excellent spot, by the way!

[Pierre]

Hi Abby,

For completeness, the Morning Advertiser, 10 November 1888 also reports that, "Morris (sic) 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 saw the woman leave the house and return with some milk."

Of course, this account makes no mention of Lewis speaking to the woman and, as you rightly point out, he could easily have got her mixed up with Maxwell, i e. because she also went to get some milk after 8:00am. Excellent spot, by the way!

Hi,

Well, as I said in my first post about this (#87):

"So who was going in and out in that house on the morning of the ninth around 8 o´clock? Well, it could have been any woman. It could even have been Mrs Maxwell."

But my interpretation is not that it was Maxwell, I just say it can not be ruled out.

And you are writing:

...Maxwell, i e. because she also went to get some milk after 8:00am

There is nothing in the original police papers or inquest papers about Maxwell getting some milk. She is either going on an errand or taking plates from the house opposite.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;374498]

Hi John,

What is the value of the Lewis-sources? The value of the Lewis-sources is low. They consist only of contradictory newspapers.

They give "a woman", "a house", "the deceased", and "the house".

We do not have a sufficient reason to interpret "a woman" in the texts as being Mary Jane Kelly and "the house" as being her room. There is no reliability, since the sources differ.

And what about the sighting of Kelly at the pub? It is useless. Here it is in The Times:

"A tailor named Lewis says he saw Kelly come out about 8 o'clock yesterday morning and go back. Another statement is to the effect that Kelly was seen in a public-house known as the Ringers at the corner of Dorset-street and Commercial-street, about 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and that she met there her lover, Barnet (sic) and had a glass of beer with him. This statement is also not substantiated.

What does "another statement" mean? We can not know this.

So both of these "statements" in the diverse newspapers are of no reliability.

What then is the value of the Maxwell-sources?

The value of those sources, being contradictory newspaper articles, are low.

But the value of those sources, being inquest papers are high. They are produced under oath. The value of the papers from the police investigation on the 9th is also rather high. That is, the reliability is high. We can know that this is what the police wrote.

But the validity of these reliable sources is low, since the sources have a tendency. So they can not be used for drawing any conclusions about whether Kelly was alive or not at eight or nine o´clock in the morning.

The first thing we have to do, if we would like to get knowledge, is to sort out irrelevant sources.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

very well summed up if i may say so.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;374507]

Pierre

very well summed up if i may say so.

Steve

Well, source criticism is the most valuable tool we have got in this case if we want to generate any knowledge at all. And thanks, Steve.

Regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Hi Chris,

"You can think that you spoke to a person on a certain morning and be mistaken about which morning it was."

This is unlikely. Caroline Maxwell was first interviewed by police on the day in question.

See original witness statements, 9th November 1888.

Regards,

Simon

True
however, if she was accustomed to getting milk every morning or at least frequently, I could see how she might still get the day mixed up. especially how crazy that whole scene must have been.

[John G]

Hi,

Well, as I said in my first post about this (#87):

"So who was going in and out in that house on the morning of the ninth around 8 o´clock? Well, it could have been any woman. It could even have been Mrs Maxwell."

But my interpretation is not that it was Maxwell, I just say it can not be ruled out.

And you are writing:



There is nothing in the original police papers or inquest papers about Maxwell getting some milk. She is either going on an errand or taking plates from the house opposite.

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Of course, Lewis claimed to be playing pitch and toss in the Court at the time of his alleged 10:00am sighting, but he doesn't mention where he was when he saw Kelly "leave the house and return with some milk", or from what distance the sighting took place. Thus, if he merely witnessed a woman leave Miller's Court, via the narrow passageway, and from a distance, it might not have been Kelly, or someone emerging from Kelly's room. Moreover, the person returning with the milk need not have been the same person who exited the Court.

However, I think Maurice Lewis was most likely an attention seeker who simply invented his account.

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre,

Of course, Lewis claimed to be playing pitch and toss in the Court at the time of his alleged 10:00am sighting, but he doesn't mention where he was when he saw Kelly "leave the house and return with some milk", or from what distance the sighting took place. Thus, if he merely witnessed a woman leave Miller's Court, via the narrow passageway, and from a distance, it might not have been Kelly, or someone emerging from Kelly's room. Moreover, the person returning with the milk need not have been the same person who exited the Court.

However, I think Maurice Lewis was most likely an attention seeker who simply invented his account.

Hi,

With high probability, Morris Lewis was NOT an attention seeker. The sources referring to Lewis do not contain any reliable statements of him having said that he saw Mary Jane Kelly, a dead woman, walking in and out of her room on Miller´s Court. This is what the sources do NOT say.

If he had been an attention seeker, he would have been very explicit and the sources would have been much more reliable as to what he said. There would have been much less variation in the statements about the sighting.

The most probable explanation for the existence of the Morris-sources is that it was the journalists who were the attention-seekers. With a very high probability, there were many journalists on Dorset Street and in Miller´s Court on the 9th and thereafter, who spoke with anyone they happened to meet or see. They would have been looking for people to interview all the time.

And this Morris Lewis just happened to be in the neighbourhood and just happened to be interviewed.

All of the interviews where focusing on the murder on Kelly and nothing else . Therefore, the journalists connected everything they heard and everything they saw to the murder.

Even a simple and meaningless statement from a random person saying he saw a woman going in an out of a house was bound to be connected to that. You can actually see the tendency in the first sources referring to Lewis, where the journalists write "deceased" instead of "woman".

Another very probable explanation, which also much be taken into consideration, is that the statements of Maxwell with a rather high probability would have influenced the Lewis-sources. The journalists were reading other newspapers and were trying to put the statements into a context and to draw conclusions. When the Central News Agency telegraphed the Maxwell statements, the journalists also started to interpret those statements as being "true", and from that moment other sources, like the Lewis-sources, were influenced by the point of view that Mary had been alive at eight o´clock in the morning.

She was dead at that time.

Regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

As for getting the day wrong
Do you remember what you were doing on 9/11???
If you're old enough, do you remember what you were doing when you heard JFK has been shot.
I wonder how many people lining the route in dallas that day got their day mixed up?
I'm sorry, if you're an adult with all faculties you don't get a day like that mixed up with another.
Could she have got the person mixed up?
This is of course possible but highly unlikely as they addressed each other and the pressure she was under before the inquest would certainly have caused her to change her statement had she encountered lizzie Allbrook,Prater or anyone else and realised she made a mistake.
Mauruce Lewis couldn't see Maxwell from within the court so that one really should be put to bed.
The door to Kelly's room was closest to the court so shouldn't really be mixed up with other doors.
There was clearly a further witness who wanted no publicity also.
The obvious explanation is that the 'unrecognisable' person in the court was not mary Kelly.
Disappearing without further trace was not an issue for anyone then as it would be now.
The straw clutching in order to paint maxwell as a fool astonishes me

[John G]

As for getting the day wrong
Do you remember what you were doing on 9/11???
If you're old enough, do you remember what you were doing when you heard JFK has been shot.
I wonder how many people lining the route in dallas that day got their day mixed up?
I'm sorry, if you're an adult with all faculties you don't get a day like that mixed up with another.
Could she have got the person mixed up?
This is of course possible but highly unlikely as they addressed each other and the pressure she was under before the inquest would certainly have caused her to change her statement had she encountered lizzie Allbrook,Prater or anyone else and realised she made a mistake.
Mauruce Lewis couldn't see Maxwell from within the court so that one really should be put to bed.
The door to Kelly's room was closest to the court so shouldn't really be mixed up with other doors.
There was clearly a further witness who wanted no publicity also.
The obvious explanation is that the 'unrecognisable' person in the court was not mary Kelly.
Disappearing without further trace was not an issue for anyone then as it would be now.
The straw clutching in order to paint maxwell as a fool astonishes me

Please provide evidence to support your grand conspiracy theory. Please provide the names and addresses, as well as motives, of those involved in the conspiracy. Please provide evidence to demonstrate who was murdered in Miller's Court, if not Kelly.

It is not unreasonable to argue that Maxwell misidentified Kelly as she barely knew the woman, i.e. they had only spoken on two occasions over 4 months, and one of those instances was from across the street (and this was a neighbourhood were people would have been coming and going all the time.) And that's supposing that the person Maxwell spoke to, on those two occasions, was Kelly.

Maurice Lewis is a hopeless witness. We only have newspaper accounts of his evidence-hardly reliable source material-and he claimed to have known Kelly for 5 years, an obvious lie as she'd only lived in London since 1884.

[packers stem]

Hi John

Please provide evidence to support your grand conspiracy theory. Please provide the names and addresses, as well as motives, of those involved in the conspiracy. Please provide evidence to demonstrate who was murdered in Miller's Court, if not Kelly.

I'm sure any list of conspirators is no more appropriate to the thread than a name and address of mr random lone killer .
Same for the name of the victim

It is not unreasonable to argue that Maxwell misidentified Kelly as she barely knew the woman, i.e. they had only spoken on two occasions over 4 months, and one of those instances was from across the street (and this was a neighbourhood were people would have been coming and going all the time.) And that's supposing that the person Maxwell spoke to, on those two occasions, was Kelly.

I don't think I've said it's unreasonable to argue any point but it's certainly unreasonable to suggest that Maxwell was a fool or any less reliable than any other witnesses that have been mentioned in connection with jtr. The fact remains that hers was the strongest sighting of importance due to daylight and lack of alcohol .Many theorists put tremendous faith in Liz long,Cadosch,Schwartz,lawende,Richardson,Hutchinso n ......none of these even come close to Maxwell due to the circumstances i've mentioned yet they're not doubted .....if they fit a theory of course

Maurice Lewis is a hopeless witness. We only have newspaper accounts of his evidence-hardly reliable source material-and he claimed to have known Kelly for 5 years, an obvious lie as she'd only lived in London since 1884.

we don't know the date Kelly moved to London with any certainty
If it wasn't for the home office files Schwartz would be the worst witness ever and would be completely ignored because he was unbelievably not called to the inquest

[packers stem]

[QUOTE=Pierre;374564]Hi,

With high probability, Morris Lewis was NOT an attention seeker. The sources referring to Lewis do not contain any reliable statements of him having said that he saw Mary Jane Kelly, a dead woman, walking in and out of her room on Miller´s Court. This is what the sources do NOT say.

If he had been an attention seeker, he would have been very explicit and the sources would have been much more reliable as to what he said. There would have been much less variation in the statements about the sighting.

The most probable explanation for the existence of the Morris-sources is that it was the journalists who were the attention-seekers. With a very high probability, there were many journalists on Dorset Street and in Miller´s Court on the 9th and thereafter, who spoke with anyone they happened to meet or see. They would have been looking for people to interview all the time.

And this Morris Lewis just happened to be in the neighbourhood and just happened to be interviewed.

All of the interviews where focusing on the murder on Kelly and nothing else . Therefore, the journalists connected everything they heard and everything they saw to the murder.

Even a simple and meaningless statement from a random person saying he saw a woman going in an out of a house was bound to be connected to that. You can actually see the tendency in the first sources referring to Lewis, where the journalists write "deceased" instead of "woman".

Another very probable explanation, which also much be taken into consideration, is that the statements of Maxwell with a rather high probability would have influenced the Lewis-sources. The journalists were reading other newspapers and were trying to put the statements into a context and to draw conclusions. When the Central News Agency telegraphed the Maxwell statements, the journalists also started to interpret those statements as being "true", and from that moment other sources, like the Lewis-sources, were influenced by the point of view that Mary had been alive at eight o´clock in the morning.

She was dead at that time.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre
You state this as if you have a primary source for something that is unknown