MJK's Body Identification?

[packers stem]

and yet you totally fail to address Richards very plausible explanation.

Maxwell admitted she had only spoken to the woman who she thought was mary only a couple of times over the course of several months. that's not a lot.
Mary let friends sleep at her place. many women like mary lived in the court.
Don't you find it plausible, or at least possible, that who she thought was Mary was someone else?
even the coroner cautioned Maxwell.

Hi Abby
You know full well the corner was only cautioning Maxwell due to the medical evidence so it's irrelevant.
Do we know how many times Hutchinson spoke to Kelly over the previous months?
Clearly he only saw lizzie Allbrook or Prater as it was dark at the time and he's much more likely to be mistaken.
Remembering that Maxwell addressed Kelly by her name also....
Maxwell's evidence was corroborated by Maurice Lewis..... Unlike Hutchinson who was clearly mistaken or got the wrong day at best.
Maxwell turned up at the inquest unlike others to accept questions and cautioning from the coroner.
Still the most believable witness....by a country mile

[packers stem]

Hi Packers,

Okay, let's look at what Maxwell actually says. According to her inquest testimony she first saw Kelly between 8:00am to 8:30am, and then again, between 8:00am and 9:00am, outside the Britannia, although this was "at some distance". Moreover, on the first occasion Maxwell asked her, "...Why don't you go to Mrs Ringers [The Britannia] and have a pint of beer." Kelly, allegedly, responded, " I have already been there and had it, but I have brought it up again."

So there you have it. Apparently Kelly had been wandering around an intensely overcrowded neighbourhood for at least half an hour, in broad daylight, but we're expected to believe that only Maxwell noticed her during this period, as not a single other witness came forward- including all of the pub-goers who would have been present in the Britannia, and the barman who presumably served her with drink.

I'm sorry but this isn't remotely tenable. Either Maxwell was an attention seeker, or she got the days of the sighting mixed up, or she was confusing Kelly with someone else. It's also worth noting that the first sighting was from "across the street" and the second "at some distance."

I would just add, for completeness, that even if Maxwell was correct in her evidence then it in no way precludes the possibility that the woman murdered in Miller's Court was MJK, i.e. on the basis that the murder occurred after 8:30am.

Hi John
You also have completely ignored Maurice Lewis and yet hold great faith in the residents of the area to go diving into the nearest police station with information of a possible sighting.... The very place most of the locals in the 'worst street in london' would go nowhere near. Most of the locals would not want to be in any way getting involved with the police or appearing at an inquest unless they were interviewed due to living in the court.
As a case in point Best and Gardner testified witnessing Stride leaving the Bricklayers Arms..... Precisely how many customers from the Bricklayers Arms came forward to corroborate this??
None..... Most people just don't get involved, same today as it was then in such areas.You can not use a lack of witnesses to prove a witness wrong I'm afraid,just doesn't hold water. Lewis corroborated the sighting, that makes it strong enough. There was also an unidentified woman who claimed to have seen her.
Attention seeker,wrong day,mistaken..... These can be thrown at every other witness far more easily if we so wish

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby
You know full well the corner was only cautioning Maxwell due to the medical evidence so it's irrelevant.
Do we know how many times Hutchinson spoke to Kelly over the previous months?
Clearly he only saw lizzie Allbrook or Prater as it was dark at the time and he's much more likely to be mistaken.
Remembering that Maxwell addressed Kelly by her name also....
Maxwell's evidence was corroborated by Maurice Lewis..... Unlike Hutchinson who was clearly mistaken or got the wrong day at best.
Maxwell turned up at the inquest unlike others to accept questions and cautioning from the coroner.
Still the most believable witness....by a country mile

do you think it was not mary Kelly who was found murdered?
whats your overall idea here?

[John G]

Hi John
You also have completely ignored Maurice Lewis and yet hold great faith in the residents of the area to go diving into the nearest police station with information of a possible sighting.... The very place most of the locals in the 'worst street in london' would go nowhere near. Most of the locals would not want to be in any way getting involved with the police or appearing at an inquest unless they were interviewed due to living in the court.
As a case in point Best and Gardner testified witnessing Stride leaving the Bricklayers Arms..... Precisely how many customers from the Bricklayers Arms came forward to corroborate this??
None..... Most people just don't get involved, same today as it was then in such areas.You can not use a lack of witnesses to prove a witness wrong I'm afraid,just doesn't hold water. Lewis corroborated the sighting, that makes it strong enough. There was also an unidentified woman who claimed to have seen her.
Attention seeker,wrong day,mistaken..... These can be thrown at every other witness far more easily if we so wish

But Maurice Lewis is an even more unreliable witness-see post 57. And how on earth can you possibly argue that Maxwell is so reliable when, by her own evidence, she barely knew the victim? Moreover, I'm pretty sure that if any witness saw her in the Britannia they would have come forward, particularly considering the size of reward on offer and the chance to sell their story to the press. And, of course, being the local pub she would no doubt be easily recognized, unlike Stride in the Bricklayers Arms.

As for most people not wanting to get involved, I would have thought the reverse was true, hence the surfeit of probable time wasters who inserted themselves into the case: Packer, Hutchinson, Violena...

And, if Kelly did survive, what happened to her? How could she possibly avoid being discovered, given the massive amount of publicity the case attracted? If Kelly wasn't killed in Miller's Court who was? What were they doing in Kelly's room? And please, no unsubstantiated realms of fantasy conspiracy theories!

And, as I've pointed out, even if Maxwell is correct it still doesn't mean that the woman murdered wasn't MJK.

[packers stem]

But Maurice Lewis is an even more unreliable witness-see post 57. And how on earth can you possibly argue that Maxwell is so reliable when, by her own evidence, she barely knew the victim? Moreover, I'm pretty sure that if any witness saw her in the Britannia they would have come forward, particularly considering the size of reward on offer and the chance to sell their story to the press. And, of course, being the local pub she would no doubt be easily recognized, unlike Stride in the Bricklayers Arms.

As for most people not wanting to get involved, I would have thought the reverse was true, hence the surfeit of probable time wasters who inserted themselves into the case: Packer, Hutchinson, Violena...

And, if Kelly did survive, what happened to her? How could she possibly avoid being discovered, given the massive amount of publicity the case attracted? If Kelly wasn't killed in Miller's Court who was? What were they doing in Kelly's room? And please, no unsubstantiated realms of fantasy conspiracy theories!

And, as I've pointed out, even if Maxwell is correct it still doesn't mean that the woman murdered wasn't MJK.

Hi John
I've already explained why a lack of witnesses isn't an argument against the sightings by both Maxwell and Lewis. You can't presume someone would come forward. The reports from the previous night are from neighbours who would have been approached by the police. Are we to presume that no one other than immediate neighbours saw her in the hours leading upto the murder? Where were all these vocal pub goers?
Lewis is a strong witness as he was IN the court when playing pitch and toss.In the court,not in the street,not in a pub but actually in the court .It is highly likely that if people played it there that day,they did so regularly.Its also highly likely that he would be well used to seeing Kelly come and go from her room whilst playing. Let's remember he saw her leave her room and return shortly after.Which room would be common knowledge by the time of the interview so hopefully we won't go down the "wrong room" argument.no reason at all to disbelieve him.
Your last but one paragraph isn't relevant to the thread which is about the identification of the body and would take far too long to delve into at the moment.
As for the last paragraph.... Fish and chips supper... For breakfast??
Whoever died did so in the early hours. You couldn't buy fish and chips at 6 am. The fish and chips street vendors appeared at pub closing times. By 4 the breakfast vendors were on the streets.
Digestion of fish and potatoes 1-3 hours and for Bond to actually recognise what it was it would be stretching credulity to insist death occurred closer to 3 than 1 hour

[Pierre]

By missing persons report I meant that we have no evidence that would have led the police to believe the body in the bed was someone other than Mary. Why is it so hard to believe that the family of the deceased might have expressed some concern over the disappearance of a loved one to the police especially when the Whitechapel murderer was on the loose?

It seems like you are trying to prove a negative. Yes, it is certainly possible that Barnett was wrong or lied or that McCarthy lied as well. It is also possible that the police were incompetent. But for me, I think it is much better to invoke Occam's razor and accept Barnett's identification until such evidence surfaces to refute it. Evidence not speculation.

c.d.

Hi,

this is a good example of not using source criticism. There is no "Occam´s razor" in source criticism. But there is "tendency".

Not performing a source criticism and not finding the tendency in a source is not "evidence". It is blindness, i.e. inability to see things.

Regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

Hi Abby

do you think it was not mary Kelly who was found murdered?

Correct

whats your overall idea here?

As with my reply to John, this thread concerns identification and would be too in depth

[Joshua Rogan]

As for the last paragraph.... Fish and chips supper... For breakfast??
Whoever died did so in the early hours. You couldn't buy fish and chips at 6 am. The fish and chips street vendors appeared at pub closing times. By 4 the breakfast vendors were on the streets.
Digestion of fish and potatoes 1-3 hours and for Bond to actually recognise what it was it would be stretching credulity to insist death occurred closer to 3 than 1 hour

I'm sure I can't be the only person who's eaten last night's unfinished chips cold for breakfast....

[GUT]

I'm sure I can't be the only person who's eaten last night's unfinished chips cold for breakfast....

I'm not even convinced they weren't available that early.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If the person on the bed was not Mary Kelly, that person could have consumed fish and chips an hour or so before her death, maybe as a means to entice her to room 13.
If you take the sighting of the man with two women outside ''Ringers'' the man trying to get a well dressed woman to go with them, whilst the other stood close by, and you also take notice of the couple laughing at the reward poster, in Dorset street,and reports that Kelly rented out her room for the night, also you take Hutchinson's account that Mary Kelly allowed a person dressed in attire straight out of ''The penny dreadful'', back to her room. and the man saying.''You will be alright , for what I have told you'', and she relying,''All right my dear , you will be comfortable''..it has hallmarks of being staged.
Mary Kelly being seen that morning would suggest that she was killed at a later time. which could be a perfect alibi, for the killer of the woman on the bed.
I have suspicions about Maxwell's account, because it seems an amazing coincidence, that a week before, a letter arrived to another police force from the same address that Maxwell lived,, saying another murder would occur in a weeks time.
What are the odds that the most sensational witness in the case, stating that Kelly was alive in the morning, should live at 14, Dorset street, where that letter was penned.[ a building right opposite the next murder site?]
Regards Richard.

[DJA]

I'm not even convinced they weren't available that early.

Had Kippers for breakfast,once, a long long time ago. Yum.

No Red Herring or Jack the Kipper jokes thanks

[Pierre]

Hi Packers,

But Maxwell, by her own evidence, had only spoken to the woman she believed to be Kelly on two occasions over a four month period, and one of those instances was from "across the street."

As for Maurice Lewis, his evidence makes even less sense. Thus, he claimed to have seen the deceased, after 10:00am, drinking in the Britannia pub with several people. However, not one of these individuals came forward, and no one else claimed to have seen her around that time, and there surely must have been other pub- goers who would have seen her. Moreover, if her intention was to disappear, why was she still wandering around in public as late as 10:00am?

Hi John,

I think there might be a problem with the interpretations of the sources giving the statements of Maurice (Morris is also used in the press) Lewis.

Someone should look into this. I think it would be just the right job for David Orsam. I don´t communicate with him right now, but perhaps he will read this.

Lancashire Evening Post (9 November) has Morris Lewis stating he was in the court nine o´clock and "an hour before that he had seen a woman leave the house, and return with some milk" (my underscore).

Same statement is in South Wales Echo.

But then The Gloucestershire Echo has it on the same day but with "the deceased leave the house and return with some milk" (my underscore).

The question is which newspaper is quoting Lewis correctly (if any).

The interpretation of the sources stating that Lewis saw "a woman" implies that it could have been another woman.

And "the house" could simply have been the house on 26 Dorset Street with the entrance to the stairs in the passageway.

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.

This is a source problem and I believe, as I said, someone who are used to handle this type of problem in the newspapers should deal with it.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi John,

I think there might be a problem with the interpretations of the sources giving the statements of Maurice (Morris is also used in the press) Lewis.

Someone should look into this. I think it would be just the right job for David Orsam. I don´t communicate with him right now, but perhaps he will read this.

Lancashire Evening Post (9 November) has Morris Lewis stating he was in the court nine o´clock and "an hour before that he had seen a woman leave the house, and return with some milk" (my underscore).

Same statement is in South Wales Echo.

But then The Gloucestershire Echo has it on the same day but with "the deceased leave the house and return with some milk" (my underscore).

The question is which newspaper is quoting Lewis correctly (if any).

The interpretation of the sources stating that Lewis saw "a woman" implies that it could have been another woman.

And "the house" could simply have been the house on 26 Dorset Street with the entrance to the stairs in the passageway.

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.

This is a source problem and I believe, as I said, someone who are used to handle this type of problem in the newspapers should deal with it.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

Good points. as you say it needs someone who is very good with 19th century newspapers, all regional ones I note, to see if they are syndicated from other sources.
Of course it may not be possible to tell, which, if any of the reports is true.
It could however explain lewis's story, that is if he is not:
Simply mistaken about the day or inventing a story.

regards

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Hi John
I've already explained why a lack of witnesses isn't an argument against the sightings by both Maxwell and Lewis. You can't presume someone would come forward. The reports from the previous night are from neighbours who would have been approached by the police. Are we to presume that no one other than immediate neighbours saw her in the hours leading upto the murder? Where were all these vocal pub goers?
Lewis is a strong witness as he was IN the court when playing pitch and toss.In the court,not in the street,not in a pub but actually in the court .It is highly likely that if people played it there that day,they did so regularly.Its also highly likely that he would be well used to seeing Kelly come and go from her room whilst playing. Let's remember he saw her leave her room and return shortly after.Which room would be common knowledge by the time of the interview so hopefully we won't go down the "wrong room" argument.no reason at all to disbelieve him.
Your last but one paragraph isn't relevant to the thread which is about the identification of the body and would take far too long to delve into at the moment.
As for the last paragraph.... Fish and chips supper... For breakfast??
Whoever died did so in the early hours. You couldn't buy fish and chips at 6 am. The fish and chips street vendors appeared at pub closing times. By 4 the breakfast vendors were on the streets.
Digestion of fish and potatoes 1-3 hours and for Bond to actually recognise what it was it would be stretching credulity to insist death occurred closer to 3 than 1 hour

Maurice lewis claimed to be in Millers court playing?

[Abby Normal]

Hi John,

I think there might be a problem with the interpretations of the sources giving the statements of Maurice (Morris is also used in the press) Lewis.

Someone should look into this. I think it would be just the right job for David Orsam. I don´t communicate with him right now, but perhaps he will read this.

Lancashire Evening Post (9 November) has Morris Lewis stating he was in the court nine o´clock and "an hour before that he had seen a woman leave the house, and return with some milk" (my underscore).

Same statement is in South Wales Echo.

But then The Gloucestershire Echo has it on the same day but with "the deceased leave the house and return with some milk" (my underscore).

The question is which newspaper is quoting Lewis correctly (if any).

The interpretation of the sources stating that Lewis saw "a woman" implies that it could have been another woman.

And "the house" could simply have been the house on 26 Dorset Street with the entrance to the stairs in the passageway.

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.

This is a source problem and I believe, as I said, someone who are used to handle this type of problem in the newspapers should deal with it.

Regards, Pierre

Maurice lewis saw a woman leave and return with milk?
Isnt that what Maxwell claimed to have done that morning?