Maxwell

[packers stem]

Hi
Kelly may well have been in and out of her room before the murder but this is irrelevant also doesn't matter if she'd had a few drinks as she probably did this usually anyway as long as she wasn't totally out of it.
Besides why should cox(in the dark) be more reliable or trustworthy than Maxwell(daylight).Classic ripperology problem of accepting what fits and denying what doesn't.
As for Hutchinson the more you think about his story the more rediculous it gets.After walking miles (15 of them) from Romford he then stands and watches the court for the best part of an hour.I'm sorry but i just see all this as totally unbelievable nonsense.I suspect the Hutchinson story was a fabrication as a cover for the 'watcher' seen by Lewis/Kennedy.
She could have spent the night anywhere,Barnett,Flemming,anywhere.
I believe Kelly aided in the setting up of whoever was in her room.
I have explained this in the 'McCarthy's thoughts' thread.
The milk is awkward.This has come from from Maurice Lewis press reports and it could be that the milk part of the story is just a mix up with maxwell who reported that she went to get milk.
Bearing all the above in mind it's unlikely that she would have told Maxwell the truth about why she was throwing up and finally 'never heard of again' well that's no surprise is it?

[Raoul's Obsession]

Hi Claire and Rubyretro
There really has to be a question about the identity of the body.
In the words of John McCarthy-"The woman's nose had been cut off ,and her face gashed and mutilated so that it was quite beyond recognition"

Surely Barnett would have given no more than a fleeting glance (and probably shown no more than her face under a corner of a blanket) he would have been unlikely to have paid any attention to hands,forehead ,calf or anything else suggested.

There are two possibilities only

1.Maxwell and Lewis were truthful and Mary Kelly was not the victim

2.Maxwell and Lewis(Twice) were mistaken.

There is no third option.The idea that Kelly was the victim and she was seen by maxwell and lewis is a physical impossibility due to the times involved.

Keep an open mind about the victims identity and the pieces may fall together.

I simply can't see your option number 1 as being a possibility. If Mary Kelly was not the victim, then we need to explain a plethora of problems beginning with the night before.
1. Mary Kelly is drunk, sees Blotchy, is witnessed by a number of people going to her room (Cox & Hutchinson) but then leaves again. Why?
2. She doesn't spend that night in her room (where did she spend it?).
3. Some other women (who?) takes a customer to her room (why? and how would she know it would be empty?) and gets murdered there.
4. Mary Kelly arrives in the morning and is seen to leave the room (which currently looks like a slaughterhouse) by Maurice Lewis.
5. She then comes back with milk (why? hardly the reaction of your average person after your room has just had a red makover).
6. She then leaves again and chats to Mrs Maxwell (but says nothing about her room's new paint sceme - again not a normal reaction).
7. We then never here from her again.

It does present us with a problem. If you rule out your option 1, and option 3. (a 9am murder) is not possible then you are left with the conclusion that Maurice and Maxwell are mistaken. I'm not sure i buy this as I have always had a soft spot for Mrs Maxwell.

[FrankO]

Maxwell being mistaken, how can one take that view?

Hi Richard,

She saw a woman vomiting, while the murdered woman definitely had fish and potatoes in her stomach when killed.

Why would one even want to eat when one’s really hung over to the extent of vomiting? I know I don’t.

She didn’t know her well, had only spoken to her on two occasions and hadn’t seen her for 3 weeks in the 4 months she claimed to have known her.

In her police statement there’s no mention of ‘Mary’ or ‘Carrie’, no calling of their names as if they knew each other quite well. At the inquest, however, she does mention these names, as if they were close neighbors, who chatted regularly.

According to the doctors involved, the time of death was somewhere during the night, not halfway during the morning.

Why didn’t anybody else see anything in or around the small court in daylight, like a bloody murderer?

Why would the murderer take the risk of committing such a bloody murder during daytime, in such a small court, with many people up and about in the streets?

That’s how. At least for me.

All the best,
Frank

[Fleetwood Mac]

Richard.....one of the points that go against Maxwell is the pattern of the other murders in terms of time.....it seems JTR was a 12-4 killer (or 5.20 depending upon opinion on Chapman).

It would be a departure of note to then strike at 9ish in the morning....and then you're jumping through hoops to explain this....e.g. Lord Mayor's Show....or known to her.....

I'm a big believer in the phrase that 'you learn by experience'.....and what I learn from these murders is that the experience of the previous murders suggests MJK was earlier in that day (I'd go with 2-5 in the morning).

[richardnunweek]

Hello all,
Maxwell being mistaken, how can one take that view?
Wrong person?...she knew the woman, and knew of Barnett, and had every chance to realise a error over the weekend, after all I doubt if anything else was discussed in that neighbourhood over that period.
Wrong day?
She was interviewed just a short time after the body was found, ie same day
Her story of returning plates that day[ she was carrying them when she allegedly met kelly] was confirmed as being correct.
Her outing to fetch milk was confirmed by the shop, as being that morning, he remembered Maxwell, as she had not been for 'some time'.
The clothing Maxwell described had to be found in kellys room , otherwise they would never had entertained her.
The description of the woman she saw , would have been that of Kelly, otherwise the police would never have entertained her.
Abby normal,
You make a fair point, about kellys sex drive, after allegedly being sick , and feeling unwell, and indeed that might point to a non intimate person entering her room.
We simply do not know of Mjks morals, was she a regular prostitute, or was she like Eddowes , loyal to one person , at least whilst in a relationship.
Did she play away, with Fleming etc, or some other?
Was she the type that was always escorting a drunken sailor back to her room, as Mrs Coxs neice recollected.?
We simply do not know her personality.
Taking everything we know she was.
Caring,
loyal,or at least with a concious.
liked a drink,
cheated on Barnett, one wonders why she took a man to stay the night at an ex landladys house... was she embarrased of Millers court, or was it because of Barnett being in the way?..who was this man[ described as strange]
Who was the man known as Lawrence, who was allegedly in her life.? what history is that all about.
Why was she known as Mary jane Lawrence.?
Was McCarthy her mothers maiden name?
Why did McCarthy initially know Barnett as Kelly, a coal porter.?
Her landlord , and residents knew her as simply Mary Jane, McCarthy only called her Mary Jane Kelly, because she posed as Kellys[ Barnett] wife.
How confusing is that?
We simply no nothing.
Regards Richard.

[c.d.]

As Mae West famously stated "goodness had nothing to do with it."

c.d.

[Rubyretro]

I agree with C.D.

[c.d.]

Hi Richard,

No one has ever questioned Maxwell's honesty or integrity but that does not mean that her story is accurate. Honesty and integrity have nothing to do with it if she was simply mistaken.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

I have a question.

Would someone who had the horrors of drink on them and vomiting in the street be in any mood to pick someone up and have sex?

IMHO if maxwell was correct, then it would seem MK's murderer was someone who was not a customer.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
According to many, Mary Kelly had a distinctive look, her hair, her stature,her presence was noticeable, eg, Dews account.
Fiona Kendalls account, of her grandfather recalling her as 'good looking' he was only 14 years at the time. buxom mayby?
She was alleged to have a very pleasant personality [ at least when sober] and may have talked with some impediment.
Yet dispite this many of us dispute Maxwell as a credible witness.
She alleged to have talked with her
Described her clothing.
She knew of Barnett.
she gave her evidence clearly and precisely, even though she had the whole weekend to realize any errors, and admit a mistake.
She was aware that the police doctors contridicted her sighting, yet still maintained that she saw this rather distinctive woman , on the morning of the 9th, the date when she gave the statement , and returned the plates[ confirmed] and fetched milk[ confirmed].
Did Maxwell make up this story?
Did she get the wrong day/wrong woman?
What do the facts say?
I am not talking about the doctors findings, just the integreity of this witness.
Regards Richard.

[caz]

Hello Caz......no person really knows themselves until having gone through extreme circumstances.....human beings are capable of pretty much anything given certain circumstances. So it's not so much that JTR wasn't normal....he was.....more likely his background wasn't 'normal'. More than semantics I think....the idea that serial killers aren't normal is a comforting conclusion/notion for the rest of society.

Ok, FM, firstly it was Lynn who described MJK's killer as 'not normal', so I ran with it to make a point. Lynn then backtracked to 'not a well adjusted person', which of course would apply to all murderers and a lot more besides, making the original 'not normal' comment somewhat redundant.

I'm not convinced that the ripper's background was what screwed him up and made him do what he did, however abnormal it could have been compared with the vast majority of backgrounds that went to form Whitechapel's wanderers. But if you change 'not normal' to 'not the norm', you may see more clearly what I was actually getting at.

It was 'not the norm' for women to be found murdered in the way Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride or Eddowes were, never mind Kelly. It was not the norm for England in the LVP, nor for Whitechapel in the 1880s.

Anyone who tries to tell us it was absolutely the norm will need to come up with evidence a wee bit weightier than boys being cruel to cats. Until then, I consider Carrie Maxwell to have more credibility in her little finger.

Love,

Caz
X

[packers stem]

Hi Simon
Thank you for pointing me in that direction.
It suggests to me that in he case of Darrell she told the paper that she could not identify the woman but later with a little 'persuasion' was able to positively identify her complete with name change!
Appears that 'someone' wanted a time of death later than that given by Phillips!Richardson also embellished his statement from just looking from the top step to sitting on the steps cutting leather with a rusty knife.
What Cadosch heard holds no weight at all ,no killing could be that quiet.
Does this then mean that Kennedy's press statement was the more accurate one?
As for Wolf Vanderlinden's dissertation on TOD I think it's the one for Chapman.
He shows that her meal of potatoes would likely take between 1 and 3 hours to digest.
Did the Millers court victim not have a partly digested meal of fish and potatoes in her stomach.Potatoes should have digested within 3 hours so unless she had fish and potatoes for breakfast....
If we presume she had food after closing time,which we still do today only it tends to be KFC,the indian or the kebab house,then we can safely assume the originally suspected time of death of aound 4.00 am to be correct,if not earlier.

[Fleetwood Mac]

With respect Lynn, this is not about gangs of boys torturing cats.

If this is your idea of evidence that several seriously screwed up adult men, independently slaughtering unfortunates on and off the streets of Whitechapel over a period of three months in 1888, was business as usual for the LVP and the country as a whole, and nothing for the people, the police and the press of the day to get so worked up about, it's not mine.

Now, Maxwell anyone? I'm more of a tea person myself.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz......no person really knows themselves until having gone through extreme circumstances.....human beings are capable of pretty much anything given certain circumstances. So it's not so much that JTR wasn't normal....he was.....more likely his background wasn't 'normal'. More than semantics I think....the idea that serial killers aren't normal is a comforting conclusion/notion for the rest of society.

[caz]

With respect Lynn, this is not about gangs of boys torturing cats.

If this is your idea of evidence that several seriously screwed up adult men, independently slaughtering unfortunates on and off the streets of Whitechapel over a period of three months in 1888, was business as usual for the LVP and the country as a whole, and nothing for the people, the police and the press of the day to get so worked up about, it's not mine.

Now, Maxwell anyone? I'm more of a tea person myself.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz -I'm not suprised that Wolf Vanderlinden cast doubt on Kelly's T.O.D...

...I didn't mention it, because he doesn't expand on it in this dissertation, and so I have no idea what he said -please send me the link if you have it. I think that I've become a 'fan' of his, so I'd love to read it...

...Whilst not casting doubt on any of the witnesses 'good faith' -I don't trust any of them over the Doctors.
(Hi Caz !)

Hi Rubyretro,

I'm sorry, I can't recall if Wolf has written a piece specifically dealing with Kelly's T.O.D. He may well have done, but I was just going by his posts over the years. He made it clear that it wasn't just his opinion, but that of several medical professionals he had consulted.

The problem is how to 'trust' the docs of the day to come equipped with the necessary expertise and experience to establish an accurate T.O.D for Kelly, who is the elephant in the room. How many similar cases could any of them have seen for comparison purposes? It would be difficult enough today, but back then their task was nigh on impossible. There was nothing 'normal' about this example, nothing remotely routine or familiar. We can trust that they did their best, but how do we judge what that best was?

Love,

Caz
X