MJK's Body Identification?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Richard
The issue for me is that ripperology in general refuses to accept not only Maxwell but Maurice Lewis as well purely because their accounts simply do not fit the idea of a 'kosminsky' type assailant.
Yet the same people will say "but Elizabeth Long saw Chapman at 5.30" or "Cadosh heard her" or they'll talk about Schwartz, Lawende or Hutchinson in the same manner.
There's a lot to be said for knowing someone and a daylight sighting ahead of darkness especially with Victorian street lighting,compared to a sighting of someone you don't know.Had it not been for lewis I'd have more doubt but their timings pretty much match up also.
It's a case of distorting the available evidence to suit a theory and it's been an issue from day one.Accepting what's convenient and ignoring anything that poses a question.

The general acceptance of Caroline Maxwells story is documented by the Inquest commentary itself, not by Ripperologists, and its based on the physical evidence, not any individual component of the stories about Mary out and about that morning.

Caroline Maxwell said that Mary called her "Corrie". Does that sound like it would be accurate for virtual strangers?

[David Orsam]

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

I see that, despite saying he is not speaking to me, Pierre is now assigning me little work tasks.

If only I wasn't so busy trying to find a 13 year old Mary Jane Kelly born in 1875....

[packers stem]

Maurice lewis claimed to be in Millers court playing?

Hi Abby
Yes,in the court,see A to Z, IPN and other newspaper accounts.
Makes complete sense as well to do it in a quiet courtyard as opposed to busy Dorset Street.
We know Kelly's door was closest to the courtyard itself, hard to imagine an error really.

[packers stem]

Something else to remember is the woolen crossover that Maxwell said Kelly was wearing that the times report claims was found in the room and the unidentified woman with another Kelly sighting...
The times on the 12th

she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time". On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct, and the cross-over was also found in Kelly's room. Another young woman, whose name is known, has also informed the police that she is positive she saw Kelly between half-past 8 and a quarter to 9 on Friday morning.

[John G]

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

Hi Packers,

Firstly, I don't see how anyone can logically argue that Maxwell was a reliable witness. She was not-if only for the reason that she had only briefly spoken to Kelly twice over a four month period-or the woman she believed to be Kelly- so the acquaintance was casual at best.

And consider what Maxwell said at the inquest: she claimed that she saw Kelly twice on the Friday but couldn't even be sure in what order those sightings were! Thus, the sighting in the Court was "from eight to half-past" and the other sighting, outside the Britannia, was supposedly sometime between "eight and nine o'clock".

And Michael is absolutely correct in what he says in post 91: It is highly unlikely that such a casual acquaintance would refer to Maxwell as "Carrie", particularly as people of this era tended to address each other much more formally than would generally be the case today (Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly for a much longer period, but she still addressed him as "Mr Hutchinson" and, although his account is generally questionable, he had no reason to lie about the likely form of address.)

In fact, Baxter was also clearly astounded by this issue:" And yet you say you had only spoken to her twice previously; you knew her name and she knew yours."

I must also stress that there is not a shred of evidential support for the proposition that the woman murdered in Miller's Court was anyone other than MJK, however, I understand that you don't wish to discuss this matter, as any explanation would clearly require a fairy-tale response.

Maurice Lewis' claim to have seen Kelly talking this several people in the Britannia at 10:00am is a complete fantasy. Not a single witness came forward to corroborate this story, and it's quite fanciful to suggest that the police would not have discovered another witness if his account were reliable, particularly as this sighting took place in a public place and in broad daylight.

Regarding time of death. Unfortunately you're another poster who seems to think that the Victorian GPS had the skills of a modern CSI team. Happily, we now have the assistance of modern pathologists: Dr Biggs, the forensic scientist engaged by Trevor Marriott stated: "Now days we recognise that it is [post mortem interval] subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn't even attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn't estimate time since death to within less than a few hours."

[Abby Normal]

Hi Packers,

Firstly, I don't see how anyone can logically argue that Maxwell was a reliable witness. She was not-if only for the reason that she had only briefly spoken to Kelly twice over a four month period-or the woman she believed to be Kelly- so the acquaintance was casual at best.

And consider what Maxwell said at the inquest: she claimed that she saw Kelly twice on the Friday but couldn't even be sure in what order those sightings were! Thus, the sighting in the Court was "from eight to half-past" and the other sighting, outside the Britannia, was supposedly sometime between "eight and nine o'clock".

And Michael is absolutely correct in what he says in post 91: It is highly unlikely that such a casual acquaintance would refer to Maxwell as "Carrie", particularly as people of this era tended to address each other much more formally than would generally be the case today (Hutchinson claimed to have known Kelly for a much longer period, but she still addressed him as "Mr Hutchinson" and, although his account is generally questionable, he had no reason to lie about the likely form of address.)

In fact, Baxter was also clearly astounded by this issue:" And yet you say you had only spoken to her twice previously; you knew her name and she knew yours."

I must also stress that there is not a shred of evidential support for the proposition that the woman murdered in Miller's Court was anyone other than MJK, however, I understand that you don't wish to discuss this matter, as any explanation would clearly require a fairy-tale response.

Maurice Lewis' claim to have seen Kelly talking this several people in the Britannia at 10:00am is a complete fantasy. Not a single witness came forward to corroborate this story, and it's quite fanciful to suggest that the police would not have discovered another witness if his account were reliable, particularly as this sighting took place in a public place and in broad daylight.

Regarding time of death. Unfortunately you're another poster who seems to think that the Victorian GPS had the skills of a modern CSI team. Happily, we now have the assistance of modern pathologists: Dr Biggs, the forensic scientist engaged by Trevor Marriott stated: "Now days we recognise that it is [post mortem interval] subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn't even attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn't estimate time since death to within less than a few hours."

Good post JohnG
added to the fact that there simply is not enough time after the Maxwell sighting, let alone the Maurice lewis sighting, that Mary could meet her killer, walk back to her place, and be mutilated like that. plus you have the fact of the large fire and burnt clothes-indicating a much earlier encounter with her killer.

Another thing-according to Maxwell mary was so sick from drinking that she vomited, after already going to the pub. So shes going to head back out to the pub after that? In the shape shes in? and be in any mood/condition to have sex/ solicite for sex?
Its ridiculous.

also, whats your take on Muarice lewis saying the woman he thought was Kelly was carrying milk? sounds like he saw Maxwell!?! and Maxwell saw Lizzie as Michael suggested. Do we know if Lizzie had been drinking? maybe it was her that vomited and who Maxwell spoke to, thinking it was mary?

[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

Hi Steve,

It is not a matter of Lewis being mistaken about the date or inventing a story. It is a matter of the interpreters of the articles not understanding the story.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

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

According to the earliest newspapers that is what he saw.

But a lot of people could have gone out for milk that morning.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi Abby
Yes,in the court,see A to Z, IPN and other newspaper accounts.
Makes complete sense as well to do it in a quiet courtyard as opposed to busy Dorset Street.
We know Kelly's door was closest to the courtyard itself, hard to imagine an error really.

Hi,

I guess you know the difference between a "house" and a "room".

Regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

According to the earliest newspapers that is what he saw.

But a lot of people could have gone out for milk that morning.

Regards, Pierre

Quite....
Many years before refrigerators lol
Lewis wouldn't have been able to see Maxwell from within the court..... And she wouldn't have left and returned to Kelly's room

[Pierre]

Quite....
Many years before refrigerators lol
Lewis wouldn't have been able to see Maxwell from within the court..... And she wouldn't have left and returned to Kelly's room

Hi,

Lewis did not say "room". He said "house". The house where Kelly stayed was the house of 26 Dorset Street. The main entrance of the house was on the side in the passage. The passage as well as the entrance was visible from the court.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

It is not a matter of Lewis being mistaken about the date or inventing a story. It is a matter of the interpreters of the articles being mistaken about the story.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre, has I said, yours points with regards to interpreting those sources could go along way to answering the apparent discrepancies with regards to time of death and his reported sighting of MJK.

your post #101 makes the point very clearly about the "house".

Although we can look at the questions you ask about interpreting the sources you quote, a definitive interpretation, at least with regards to who was seen, will be unlikely. Nor will those sources be able to tell us if Lewis's report is "truthful" or not.

Therefore I see no reason to completely exclude the possibility of either a mistake about the day, which seems to be unlikely; or an invention which is not unknown behaviour, as alternative scenarios.

Your post seems to suggest that you accept that he saw someone, but it is down to interpretation as to whom and where.
Do you not consider that this may not be the case?
Am I misinterpreting what you said?

Steve

[Pierre]

Pi

erre, has I said, yours points with regards to interpreting those sources could go along way to answering the apparent discrepancies with regards to time of death and his reported sighting of MJK.

I prefer to go back to the primary sources and analyse them. Sometimes they seem to say very different things compared to what people think they have said. In this way you might get closer to the sources, closer to the past and closer to the murderer.

Although we can look at the questions you ask about interpreting the sources you quote, a definitive interpretation will be unlikely. Nor will those sources be able to tell us if Lewis's report is "truthful" or not.

When you follow sources stepwise, you can see where the sources change. And by analysing the tendency in the source, you can make a more valid interpretation.

Therefore I see no reason to completely exclude the possibility of either a mistake about the day, which seems to be unlikely; or an invention which is not unknown behaviour, as alternative scenarios.

These are questions we can never answer and I guess that is why you like them. As long as there are such questions, you can hold on to you old view. With all due respect, thatīs fine with me but not enough if you really want to see the contents of the sources.

Your post seems to suggest that you accept that he saw someone, but it is down to interpretation as to whom and where.
Do you not consider that this may not be the case?
Am I misinterpreting what you said?

I accept that the text says he saw someone. That is the first step. He is talking about a "house" and "a woman".

Steve

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

"I prefer to go back to the primary sources and analyse them. Sometimes they seem to say very different things compared to what people think they have said. In this way you might get closer to the sources, closer to the past and closer to the murderer."


yes and you have made the case strongly " house " meaning #26"




"When you follow sources stepwise, you can see where the sources change. And by analysing the tendency in the source, you can make a more valid interpretation."



However when we come to the issue of who was seen, I do not believe the source will be able to tell us what Lewis meant, if he did say woman, it could as you say mean any woman, however it may mean MJK, i do not see anyway of knowing just what he meant.
I do however consider that your interpretation does have a lot in its favour.



"These are questions we can never answer and I guess that is why you like them. As long as there are such questions, you can hold on to you old view. With all due respect, thatīs fine with me but not enough if you really want to see the contents of the sources."

Why do you say that Pierre, do you actually know what my view is?

I am looking at all possibilities, and considering them:

1. The idea of a mistaken date does not seem probably or very strong.
2. Lewis may not have told the truth, this is not unheard of, and is a viable option.
3. Your interpretation with regards to "house" is in my opinion, very viable and very strong.
4. The interpretation of "woman" or "deceased" is again viable, and strong, if not as strong as the "house" point.

You with all due respect are not looking at all the possibilities.

regards

Steve

[packers stem]

Hi,

Lewis did not say "room". He said "house". The house where Kelly stayed was the house of 26 Dorset Street. The main entrance of the house was on the side in the passage. The passage as well as the entrance was visible from the court.

Regards, Pierre

Kellys door opened onto the court at the end of the passageway Pierre. The fact that the room was the rear of 26 is irrelevant.That is the door she would have used for leaving and returning again