Kennedy and Lewis

[Ms Diddles]

Hi George and Jon, I've always thought there was more to Maxwell's testimony than has been dismissed. It's nice to see reasoned and rational debate from seasoned casebook stalwarts rather than the bickering that seems to be happening recently. As a newbie it's risky sticking ones head above the parapet and I don't want to be felled before I've seen action lol. I don't have a "candidate" phrasing it that way as I don't want to get into the suspect/person of interest decbarcle nor do I have a theory just many questions and queries and hopefully one day casebook luminaries will help me join some of the dots.

Helen x

Hi Helen,

I'm with you on this too.

I find Maxwell's testimony to be interesting if somewhat problematic.

It's very easily dismissed as being simply mistaken identity (possible) or the wrong day (highly unlikely), but I actually find her to be one of the more credible witnesses in the whole saga.

I'm inclined to think she got it right.

It's a conundrum for sure!

[harry]

If you read lewis's testimony correctly,she gives it in sequence,First she notices the time by the clock,then she goes to the court.Of course she cannot be in two places at once.She reaches the court a very short time after noticing the time,and that sticks in her mind.A small but allowable error,as she may,like a lot of witnesses,have been nervous and under stress.

[Wickerman]

Hi Helen,

I'm with you on this too.

I find Maxwell's testimony to be interesting if somewhat problematic.

It's very easily dismissed as being simply mistaken identity (possible) or the wrong day (highly unlikely), but I actually find her to be one of the more credible witnesses in the whole saga.

I'm inclined to think she got it right.

It's a conundrum for sure!

A "wrong day" argument can be ruled out, both events occurred on the same day.
It was Friday morning when she saw this 'person', and Friday afternoon when she spoke to police.

[Abby Normal]

A "wrong day" argument can be ruled out, both events occurred on the same day.
It was Friday morning when she saw this 'person', and Friday afternoon when she spoke to police.

she saw who she thought was mary kelly-its classic mistaken identity.

1.times are too tight for her sighting to be Mary. and the large hot fire is the clue to it that puts it out of the question. there were clothes burnt in this large hot fire which the killer obviously did. not enough time from maxwell sighting to McCarthy discovery to be accurate-- for mary to go to a pub, engage a punter, walk back to her place, stoke up a huge fire, get attacked, killed and extensive mutilations, clothes thrown in fire and killer to get away in broad morning day light before mcCarthy shows up? no way.

2. she didnt even know "Mary" all that well. said she had only spoken to her twice over a couple of months. there were alot of people coming and going from Marys place including other prostitute friends. she probably got them mixed up. maxwell strikes me as a nosy busy body who likes to gossip and thinks shes a know it all-she reminds me alot like fanny mortimer or packer. worthless witness that just confuses everything with their tattle.

3. according to maxwell herself "Mary" was so sick from alcohol poisoning that she was vomiting in the street. Last thing someone in that condition is going to do(or even be able to do) is go out looking for clients to have sex with.

4. the coroner had issues with her story. and the police seemed to doubt her story too.

added to that we have corroberated claims by reliable witnesses of cries of murder coming from marys room in the middle of the night in all liklihood placing her death then.

Mary was dead in her room when maxwell was talking to who she thought was Mary.

[Wickerman]

If you read lewis's testimony correctly,she gives it in sequence,First she notices the time by the clock,then she goes to the court.Of course she cannot be in two places at once.She reaches the court a very short time after noticing the time,and that sticks in her mind.A small but allowable error,as she may,like a lot of witnesses,have been nervous and under stress.

Harry, this is a quote word for word from the court record.

"I know Mrs Keyler in Millers Court, I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning, she lives at No.2 in the court, on the left on the first floor, I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields church clock as I passed it."


Lets get one thing straight that I think we can both agree on.

If, for the sake of argument the time was 2:28 as she passed the clock, then it could be about 2:31 or so, as she arrived at Millers Court. The walk between the two is merely a hundred and twenty feet, or thereabouts.
This is simple to agree on.

What is important to remember though is, the time could also have been 2:10 as she passed the clock, and 2:13 or so, as she arrived at Millers Court.
In both scenario's she will still be at Millers Court at 2:30.

The above testimony can be applied to both scenario's, because, we do not know the time as she passed the clock, she doesn't say what it was.
And, Lewis does not say what the time was when she arrived.


So, if we can agree on the above then we need to look for some detail that may help us separate one scenario from the other.

You have asserted Hutchinson had to be stood at Millers Court by 2:15?, we can go with that.

Lewis tells us that as she went up the court she noticed a man standing opposite, looking up the court.
She doesn't say she saw him as she walk down Dorset st., only that she noticed him as she entered the passage.
So, was he already stood there, but she didn't notice him? or, was he also walking along Dorset St. but on the other side, and he only stopped walking as Lewis arrived at the passage on the other side of the street.
In other words, they almost arrived together, about the same time?
It could be either.

What must be certain though is, the man Lewis saw standing opposite must have been Hutchinson, he was there for most of the 45 minutes (2:15-3:00), so no other man could have stood there.
Her loiterer was Hutchinson.

Hutchinson watched a man & woman (Astrachan & Kelly) enter Millers Court, so Lewis, approaching the passage must have also seen a man & woman ahead of her, and see this couple enter Millers Court.
And, that is exactly what she says - "further on"...."I saw a man & woman pass up the court".

More importantly, Hutchinson also says " I saw one man go into a lodging house, and no-one else".
So, there was no 2nd couple anywhere in view.
There was only one man loitering, and that was Hutchinson, and one couple walking along, and entering the passage. And that was Astrachan & Kelly - no-one else.

So now we can see this distraction over 'timing' was all a red herring.
Regardless what time anyone chooses to think about Lewis's arrival, she arrived at the same time as Astrachan & Kelly walked up the passage.

That is why I said "times are not relevant", the stated sequence of events puts things in order.

[Sunny Delight]

Harry, this is a quote word for word from the court record.

"I know Mrs Keyler in Millers Court, I was at her house at half past 2 on Friday morning, she lives at No.2 in the court, on the left on the first floor, I know the time by having looked at Spitalfields church clock as I passed it."


Lets get one thing straight that I think we can both agree on.

If, for the sake of argument the time was 2:28 as she passed the clock, then it could be about 2:31 or so, as she arrived at Millers Court. The walk between the two is merely a hundred and twenty feet, or thereabouts.
This is simple to agree on.

What is important to remember though is, the time could also have been 2:10 as she passed the clock, and 2:13 or so, as she arrived at Millers Court.
In both scenario's she will still be at Millers Court at 2:30.

The above testimony can be applied to both scenario's, because, we do not know the time as she passed the clock, she doesn't say what it was.
And, Lewis does not say what the time was when she arrived.


So, if we can agree on the above then we need to look for some detail that may help us separate one scenario from the other.

You have asserted Hutchinson had to be stood at Millers Court by 2:15?, we can go with that.

Lewis tells us that as she went up the court she noticed a man standing opposite, looking up the court.
She doesn't say she saw him as she walk down Dorset st., only that she noticed him as she entered the passage.
So, was he already stood there, but she didn't notice him? or, was he also walking along Dorset St. but on the other side, and he only stopped walking as Lewis arrived at the passage on the other side of the street.
In other words, they almost arrived together, about the same time?
It could be either.

What must be certain though is, the man Lewis saw standing opposite must have been Hutchinson, he was there for most of the 45 minutes (2:15-3:00), so no other man could have stood there.
Her loiterer was Hutchinson.

Hutchinson watched a man & woman (Astrachan & Kelly) enter Millers Court, so Lewis, approaching the passage must have also seen a man & woman ahead of her, and see this couple enter Millers Court.
And, that is exactly what she says - "further on"...."I saw a man & woman pass up the court".

More importantly, Hutchinson also says " I saw one man go into a lodging house, and no-one else".
So, there was no 2nd couple anywhere in view.
There was only one man loitering, and that was Hutchinson, and one couple walking along, and entering the passage. And that was Astrachan & Kelly - no-one else.

So now we can see this distraction over 'timing' was all a red herring.
Regardless what time anyone chooses to think about Lewis's arrival, she arrived at the same time as Astrachan & Kelly walked up the passage.

That is why I said "times are not relevant", the stated sequence of events puts things in order.

Where did Lewis state she saw a man and woman pass up the court? From what I have read she said 'further on there was a man and woman the latter being in drink' or words to that effect.

[Wickerman]

Where did Lewis state she saw a man and woman pass up the court? From what I have read she said 'further on there was a man and woman the latter being in drink' or words to that effect.

"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.

[Wickerman]

This one is from the Morning Post, but is not available here on Casebook.

"On Friday morning at half-past two o'clock she was at the room of her friend at – No. 2, immediately opposite the room of the murdered woman. When she went into the court she saw a man standing near the lodging-house door opposite. He was wearing a wideawake hat, and was not very tall, but was a stout-looking man. He was looking up the court, and seemed to be waiting for someone. She also saw another man and woman coming along, the latter having her hat off, and being the worse for drink."
Morning Post, 13 Nov. 1888.

[Wickerman]

We have touched on the fact the coroner closed this inquest before all the evidence was heard, here one reporter appears to be paraphrasing the words of the coroner, or sympathizing with his dilemma.

"...He laid down the sound proposition that the duty of a coroner's jury was to find out the cause of death, and return a verdict accordingly............ Long drawn out inquests, such as we have too often had to suffer of late, are in every way a mistake. They are wastefully expensive, they cause a quite unnecessary amount of trouble, and put witnesses and others to inconvenience which is at once uncalled for and unjustifiable. Once the jury is satisfied as to the cause of death, whether it was murder, suicide, accident, or what not, its duty is at an end and, if there is any suspicion or a certainty of criminality involved in the matter, the affair then becomes one for the police. In the case of the Whitechapel murders, one is so much like another that these considerations tell with redoubled force. No coroner's jury is at all likely to throw any fresh light upon the modus operandi of the monster who has selected the East end as his sphere of action, and therefore it is sheer waste of time for a coroner to go on travelling over and over again what is practically old ground."

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18881113.html

[Parisi North Humber]

Hi Helen,

I'm with you on this too.

I find Maxwell's testimony to be interesting if somewhat problematic.

It's very easily dismissed as being simply mistaken identity (possible) or the wrong day (highly unlikely), but I actually find her to be one of the more credible witnesses in the whole saga.

I'm inclined to think she got it right.

It's a conundrum for sure!

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

[harry]

I am quoting from sworn inquest testimony Jon.
Lets look at it from another view.If I notice something,it is because I am looking at it.For instance,I notice a book on my desk.I see it.
If I am indoors I do not see church chimes,I hear them.It is a question of the senses.
So If Lewis was indoors at 2.30,she would not see/notice the church clock/chimes,therefor I contend she must have been outdoors looking at the church clock at 2.30.

[Joshua Rogan]

I am quoting from sworn inquest testimony Jon.
Lets look at it from another view.If I notice something,it is because I am looking at it.For instance,I notice a book on my desk.I see it.
If I am indoors I do not see church chimes,I hear them.It is a question of the senses.
So If Lewis was indoors at 2.30,she would not see/notice the church clock/chimes,therefor I contend she must have been outdoors looking at the church clock at 2.30.

From Lewis' inquest testimony;

"On the Friday morning about half past two when I was coming to Miller's Court I met the same man with a female - in Commercial Street near Mr Ringers Public House - near the market - He had then no overcoat on - but he had the bag & the same hat trousers & undercoat
I passed by them and looked back at at the man - I was frightened - I looked again when I got to the corner of Dorset Street. I have not seen the man since I should know him if I did - "

[harry]

Joshua,
Yes ,she did testify to what you say,but how does that sighting conflict with her noticing the time.It actually reinforces my claim she was in Commercial Street at 2.30,and not in Millers Court.

[Joshua Rogan]

Joshua,
Yes ,she did testify to what you say,but how does that sighting conflict with her noticing the time.It actually reinforces my claim she was in Commercial Street at 2.30,and not in Millers Court.

I don't think it conflicts at all, harry.

[GBinOz]

she saw who she thought was mary kelly-its classic mistaken identity.

1.times are too tight for her sighting to be Mary. and the large hot fire is the clue to it that puts it out of the question. there were clothes burnt in this large hot fire which the killer obviously did. not enough time from maxwell sighting to McCarthy discovery to be accurate-- for mary to go to a pub, engage a punter, walk back to her place, stoke up a huge fire, get attacked, killed and extensive mutilations, clothes thrown in fire and killer to get away in broad morning day light before mcCarthy shows up? no way.

3. according to maxwell herself "Mary" was so sick from alcohol poisoning that she was vomiting in the street. Last thing someone in that condition is going to do(or even be able to do) is go out looking for clients to have sex with.

added to that we have corroberated claims by reliable witnesses of cries of murder coming from marys room in the middle of the night in all liklihood placing her death then.

Mary was dead in her room when maxwell was talking to who she thought was Mary.

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