Kennedy and Lewis

[Sunny Delight]

"I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court as if he was waiting for some one. I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."
https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18881113.html

"When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court."
https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../dt881113.html

Various newspapers edited down the testimony, we have bits & pieces of what Lewis said at the inquest, most of which was not captured in the court record. It's clear that Lewis did not associate the man standing there with the couple she mentioned walking further ahead.

It is very frustrating that so many papers reported it differently. Previously you asked me to quote not from the Press but from Lewis Inquest statement as per the court papers. What did she say according to that? Also interested in your thoughts on the fact Hutchinson said he saw no one except a constable at the end of the street and a man entering the Lodging house. We it that he was responding to a question on seeing someone else as a question meaning did he see any single men as a man with a woman would not be seen as a possible murderer? He doesn't mention Lewis either but that's because she is a woman so again not a possible murderer.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms Diddles,

I think Maxwell couldn't be budged on her testimony because she truely believed in what she was stateing.
The whole vomitting sequence seems so base yet odd that it has to be more than a figment of her imagination or embelishment of an occurance. I have always wondered however if there were two Mary Kellys known around Miller's court, I say this as the descriptions of MJK differ so willdly and even the press sketches depict women of completely different physical attributes. Two sketches stand out, one being a tall, fair haired MJK dressed in hat and bustle about to enter her door. The other is a sketch of a plain, short, stout, dark haired woman sporting scraped back hair and a fringe. Surely these can't be the same person? And if they were there is no wonder we get a handle on the true MJK.

Helen X

It's an interesting theory, Helen.

I agree that those newspaper sketches look like two completely different people.

I'm not sure how accurate the sketches would have been though, as I'm guessing they just kind of made the pictures up from vague eye witness descriptions when there was no photo to work from, and the body was so disfigured as to be unrecognisable.

I also find it interesting that Maxwell mentions that she knows Joe Barnet in relation to Mary, which to me suggests she knows who she's talking about.

I'm afraid it all raises more questions than answers!

[Aethelwulf]

I also find it interesting that Maxwell mentions that she knows Joe Barnet in relation to Mary, which to me suggests she knows who she's talking about.

That's an interesting point. If Maxwell knew Barnett and associated Kelly with him, it's difficult to see how she could have got the wrong person.

I've always thought the description of her wearing only a chemise, with clothes folded up and boots by the fire, sounds more like someone who has gone to bed for the night. I wonder if she would have done all that if she'd just picked up an opportunistic punter in the morning for a quick liaison. Together with the cries of murder I tend to favour the ~4 am ToD and AMan as the killer. Somehow, Maxwell must have been mistaken, or realised she was but couldn't bring herself to admit it in front of everyone.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

The vomiting would also have brought up any food in her stomach, but a meal of fish pie was found in the body of the victim. It is clear that whoever Maxwell was speaking with that morning was not the victim of the murder. However, Maxwell's story was reinforced by Maurice Lewis, and it was rumoured, by others who said they saw MJK that morning. Were they all mistaken?

Barnett said he left MJK because she had other prostitutes in her room. It seems possible that a different woman was murdered and it was MJK that discovered the body and made the cry of murder. It would also explain the folded clothing, and would not be in conflict with the medical estimate of the TOD. Was the mistaken identity by Maxwell, Maurice Lewis and perhaps others, or by Barnett in his identification?

Cheers, George

hi george-yes the empty stomach from vomiting point ive made before too. just forgot to include in the post, but it is another strong point to the woman that maxwell thought was Mary was someone else. lewis was probably just parrotting maxwell or others and his later sighting of mary makes it even more improbable he was correct. plus hes just too nebulous a witness any way. so yes they were all mistaken.

the rest of your post, all due respect, is ridiculous. im beginning to think your a pseudo conspiracy guy. lol
and btw barnett being an intimate lover would have had no problem iding her, he could still have easily done it even if she was worse off.

[Abby Normal]

That's an interesting point. If Maxwell knew Barnett and associated Kelly with him, it's difficult to see how she could have got the wrong person.

I've always thought the description of her wearing only a chemise, with clothes folded up and boots by the fire, sounds more like someone who has gone to bed for the night. I wonder if she would have done all that if she'd just picked up an opportunistic punter in the morning for a quick liaison. Together with the cries of murder I tend to favour the ~4 am ToD and AMan as the killer. Somehow, Maxwell must have been mistaken, or realised she was but couldn't bring herself to admit it in front of everyone.

hi wulf
nah-nosy gossippy busy bodies usually pick up on things like other peoples relationships. she was probably gossipping with another women and they were talking about Mary and barnetts name came up.

I've always thought the description of her wearing only a chemise, with clothes folded up and boots by the fire, sounds more like someone who has gone to bed for the night. I wonder if she would have done all that if she'd just picked up an opportunistic punter in the morning for a quick liaison.

agree, she was killed in the middle of the night. and probably around four, but I favor blotchy, or hutch after blotchy left. aman story is patent nonsense.

[Ms Diddles]

hi wulf
nah-nosy gossippy busy bodies usually pick up on things like other peoples relationships. she was probably gossipping with another women and they were talking about Mary and barnetts name came up.



agree, she was killed in the middle of the night. and probably around four, but I favor blotchy, or hutch after blotchy left. aman story is patent nonsense.

Hi Abby!

I agree that busy-body types love gossiping about other peoples relationships.

I personally don't read Maxwell as being of that type though.

More pertinently, neither did Abberline, who IIRC said something to the effect of her being a respectable woman and not an attention seeker (and he would be well placed to know the difference!).

[Ms Diddles]

That's an interesting point. If Maxwell knew Barnett and associated Kelly with him, it's difficult to see how she could have got the wrong person.

I've always thought the description of her wearing only a chemise, with clothes folded up and boots by the fire, sounds more like someone who has gone to bed for the night. I wonder if she would have done all that if she'd just picked up an opportunistic punter in the morning for a quick liaison. Together with the cries of murder I tend to favour the ~4 am ToD and AMan as the killer. Somehow, Maxwell must have been mistaken, or realised she was but couldn't bring herself to admit it in front of everyone.

I agree that if you look at the bigger picture, the simplest solution is, as you say, that Maxwell must have been mistaken.

The problem for me is that if you look at her actual testimony, she sounds utterly credible (backed up by Maurice Lewis's testimony and Abberline's character reference).

As a rule, I always tend towards the most simplistic, least dramatic solutions to these mini mysteries.

This one is the exception.

Whichever way I look at this, Maxwell's testimony has the ring of truth.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby!

I agree that busy-body types love gossiping about other peoples relationships.

I personally don't read Maxwell as being of that type though.

More pertinently, neither did Abberline, who IIRC said something to the effect of her being a respectable woman and not an attention seeker (and he would be well placed to know the difference!).

hi diddles
was that abberline or dew, our old reliable friend? lol

either way, IMHO since all the other evidence points to a night time murder, and away from a daylight morning murder, whether she was a nosy busy body or not, I think she simply had the wrong Mary. or who she thought was Mary.
but her story does have a ring of truth about it as you say, which is why I think she was mistaken and not lying.

[Ms Diddles]

hi diddles
was that abberline or dew, our old reliable friend? lol

either way, IMHO since all the other evidence points to a night time murder, and away from a daylight morning murder, whether she was a nosy busy body or not, I think she simply had the wrong Mary. or who she thought was Mary.
but her story does have a ring of truth about it as you say, which is why I think she was mistaken and not lying.

Yeah, Abby!

I'm sure it was Abberline.

Had it been Dew, I'd have likely taken it with a pinch of salt!

Agreed all the other evidence points to a night time murder.

I just find Maxwell's evidence quite compelling and difficult to dismiss.

[GBinOz]

Yeah, Abby!

I'm sure it was Abberline.

Had it been Dew, I'd have likely taken it with a pinch of salt!

Agreed all the other evidence points to a night time murder.

I just find Maxwell's evidence quite compelling and difficult to dismiss.

Hi Ms Diddles

Accepting the evidence of Maxwell and others doesn't conflict with the night time murder if it is accepted that it was someone else. Hutchinson was the last person to see MJK. If she left her room after that and allowed someone else to use her room, then the only conflicting evidence is the identification by Barnett. My wife and I have been together 30 years and I could not identify her by her eyes and ears alone.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ms Diddles

Accepting the evidence of Maxwell and others doesn't conflict with the night time murder if it is accepted that it was someone else. Hutchinson was the last person to see MJK. If she left her room after that and allowed someone else to use her room, then the only conflicting evidence is the identification by Barnett. My wife and I have been together 30 years and I could not identify her by her eyes and ears alone.

Cheers, George

what!?! i could id my wife by her finger nail. your quickly losing all credibility aussie george.

[C. F. Leon]

Hi Ms Diddles

Accepting the evidence of Maxwell and others doesn't conflict with the night time murder if it is accepted that it was someone else. Hutchinson was the last person to see MJK. If she left her room after that and allowed someone else to use her room, then the only conflicting evidence is the identification by Barnett. My wife and I have been together 30 years and I could not identify her by her eyes and ears alone.

Cheers, George

I've thought about Barnett's identification over the "'ears" and wondered if maybe he was going by Mary wearing her hair in a particular style, or perhaps a torn earlobe, or maybe earrings that he gave her- something of that nature. Maybe he was just an "ear man"?

[GBinOz]

I've thought about Barnett's identification over the "'ears" and wondered if maybe he was going by Mary wearing her hair in a particular style, or perhaps a torn earlobe, or maybe earrings that he gave her- something of that nature. Maybe he was just an "ear man"?

Maybe. You would expect that he identified her at the mortuary, but I couldn't find anything to contradict his statement that he identified her through the broken window. Her body wouldn't have been a pretty sight and I wonder whether he took a brief look and identified the body as the person he expected to be there?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

what!?! i could id my wife by her finger nail. your quickly losing all credibility aussie george.

Hi Abby,

It is gratifying to hear that at least at one stage I had some credibility. I presume you are aware that Barnett testified that when he last saw MJK in her room at about 7:30 PM on the evening before the body was found there was another woman in the room with them.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

From Hull Daily Mail
Nov 12, 1888

Could this have been referring to Nov 9, or Nov 10?

Cheers,George