Maxwell

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
This witness is a fascinating mystery in the Ripper case, she is discredited by the majority of Casebook as either mistaken , or lying.
Let common sense prevail , and ask one question to yourself.
What would have been police precedure in ascertaining if this witness was not mistaken?
Would they have simply taken her word for it, which would be not consistant with the police doctors opinion?
we know she was asked the clothing that the woman she claimed to have been Kelly was wearing, and i once saw a report[ since missing] that had Maxwell describe her physical well being.
Would she not, most importantly of all been asked to describe the actual woman she saw in detail, and if this was not to the satisfaction of the police, been taken to the mortuary, to identify at least the face , when stitched.
I find it incredible that Mrs Maxwell would have been allowed to give evidence at the inquest if the police were in any doubt that this woman was inventing the whole story, they must have satisfied themselves that she had not made a mistake in identification.
We know that her movements were checked , and verifed, and we know Abberline used the words 'I tried to get the woman to alter her story, but i could not do so.
So if it was true, and she did see Mjk alive that morning , two explantions are
put foreward.
1] The body was not that of Mary Kelly....
2]kelly was killed around 9am, on the morning of the 9th.
Lets look at Maxwell as being honest.
Regards Richard.

[FrankO]

1] The body was not that of Mary Kelly....

Hi Richard,

Although Caroline Maxwell remains an interesting witness, I have a remark.

If the body was not that of Mary Jane Kelly, that would mean that Barnett and McCarthy, who identified her and undoubtedly knew her far better than Maxwell were either mistaken or lying. How would you explain that?

All the best,
Frank

[richardnunweek]

Hello Frank,
Obviously i was giving two explanations , the idea that Kelly was not the victim is i agree not a realistic one, but that being the case, that would add more credence to the other, being the time of death was wrong.
Maxwell gave her account on oath, and was described as a respectable woman, and i would have little doubt that she was being honest that she believed she spoke to the victim at the time she stated.
If she was asked to identify the womans appearance, and it matched the dead womans appearance, it would seem most unlikely she spoke to the wrong person.
And as she gave her statement on the same day , as the murder surely there can be no suggestion she got the wrong day, especially as she was returning plates when she spoke to her, and this was verified by police, also she said she went to fetch milk, and this was verified , the man who sold her the milk , said she had not been to him for some time previous, and it was that day for sure.
I cannot find fault in her account, but many i know will never believe her.
Regards Richard.

[FrankO]

Hi again Richard,

Obviously, we can't be sure but, on balance, I believe Maxwell just thought she'd seen Mary Jane Kelly (while in fact it was another woman) rather than that MJK was killed somewhere between 9 and 10 in the morning of November 9.

All the best,
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

Milk-shake

There are several problems with the "milk shop" story, in that - firstly - it doesn't appear in either Maxwell's police statement nor her inquest testimony. Secondly, the earliest references to the story that appears in the papers is from Maurice/Morris Lewis:

"Morris Lewis, a tailor, states he was playing pitch-and-toss in the court at nine o'clock yesterday morning, and an hour before that he saw the woman leave the house and return with some milk" (the Daily News and Morning Advertiser, 10th November).

In these reports "the woman" to whom Lewis refers was Mary Kelly herself, and it was she - not Maxwell - whom Lewis claimed had visited the milkshop. That he meant Kelly is confirmed, to a large extent, by the Bournemouth Visitors' Directory of 11th November, thus: "Considerable doubt prevails as to the time at which the murder was committed. The discovery was made at half past ten o'clock, and it was at first stated that the woman had been seen as late as eight o'clock that morning, when she went to fetch some milk".

The milk-buying episode only shifts to Maxwell herself, in a (pre-inquest) report in the Times of 12th November: "Mrs. Maxwell, the deputy of the Commercial lodging-house [...] gave positive information that she saw Mary Jane Kelly standing at the entrance to Miller's-court at half-past 8 on Friday morning. [...] Mrs. Maxwell further stated that after that she went into Bishopsgate-street to make some purchases, and on her return saw Kelly talking to a short, dark man at the top of the court. When asked by the police how she could fix the time of the morning, Mrs. Maxwell replied, 'Because I went to the milkshop for some milk, and I had not before been there for a long time' [...]. On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct".

That she was asked by police as to how she fixed the time appears in neither her witness statement nor the inquest transcripts and, besides, we have no indication as to the nature of the inquiries made at the milkshop - that, in itself, might only have been a piece of hearsay. In the very earliest account (in which no milkshop is mentioned), in the Evening News of 10th November, Maxwell claims to have returned from her "errands" to see Kelly again "at the end of the street" - not, you'll note, at the "top of Miller's Court".

Suffice to say that the "Maxwell returning from milkshop" story doesn't appear anywhere else apart from the Times, as far as I can tell. It sounds like tittle-tattle to me and, if I were to hazard a guess, it sounds like Maxwell co-opted Maurice Lewis's story for herself, and embellished it, perhaps with a little help from some gossipy friends. Alternatively, the Times got its wires crossed - which, sadly, wouldn't have been for the first or last time in this case.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Sam,
Your point regarding the milk is a valid one, and it could have been the case that the account by Mr Lewis, could have ended up that way.
However we should take the events as we know them , we have Mrs Pickert knocking on door 13 shortly before 8am, to borrow a shawl, receiving no answer she goes about her business.
We have Mr Lewis's account of seeing Mjk leaving her room around 8am, and return to it shortly after with some milk.
His account has Kelly out just before Maxwells initially sighting.
I am led to believe that both of these witnesses were interviewed, the press with Lewis, and the police with Maxwell on the day of the murder, and it is highly likely that these two people were interviewed at the same time, and therefore neither would have known what each other had said , until after it had been recorded, making it unlikely that any conspiracy was present.
If M Lewis was telling the truth , then he could not have been mistaken in identity, as he claimed to have seen kelly not only leave that room , but also return to it...
The reference to milk does add credence, why not simply say , 'I saw her leave her room at 8am' why say something that could have been easily checked, and have that sighting be descredited.
Regarding Mrs Maxwell.. I find it hard to believe that the police would have just accepted her sighting , without insisting she made a formal identification of the body, she could have been mistaken after all, and a view off kellys face, would have been eccential before giving evidence at a formal inquest.
I have said many times before, that it is folly to dismiss these sightings, as cases of non-importance, the police obviously believed that Maxwells version should be heard, even though it was in complete contrast with their own police doctors medical opinions.
lets be honest if any truth in these witnesses recollections, then Mjk was not killed at 4am approx, and the cry heard would not have been relevant, but the market porter seen talking to kelly at 845 am would be intresting , at least in my opinion.
Regards Richard.

[Suzi]

Hi Richard-
I also am a closet Maxwellite- I do get a tad mixed up with the plates/milk scenarios- but there's something itching away in the back of my mind that will never discount Mrs M- Why was she called to the inquest for one....

Suz x

[richardnunweek]

Hello Suzi,
At least I have someone that believes there is at least a possibility that Maxwell, and possibly Mr M Lewis were not complete morrons.
Abberline personally interviewed Maxwell, and she stayed loyal to her statement, because of this. the police had to request her to give evidence at the inquest, even if they were aware it went against the police doctors opinions regarding time of death.
However surely it is without question they would have given her every opportunety to alter her mind, most certainly for starters had her view the body after she had been stiched to confirm she was talking about the right person.
she was given every opportunety to admit she may have been mistaken, but stayed resolute, dispite being pre -warned by Baxter to be careful with her evidence.
She was described as a respectable woman, and not the type to invent. so are we suggesting that she deliberately lied, oerwas mistaken on the date she saw kelly , even though she was interviewed on the same day.
I would say not possible.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

She was described as a respectable woman, and not the type to invent. so are we suggesting that she deliberately lied, oerwas mistaken on the date she saw kelly , even though she was interviewed on the same day.
I would say not possible.

It's possible for anyone to be mistaken, Rich - whether about the day, or the person she saw. Maurice Lewis was almost certainly mistaken, in that he ostensibly described Kelly as a chubby, dark-haired midget.

[perrymason]

Hi Richard, all,...

The basic foundation for them even having a conversation at any time is shaky, what... spoken twice in about 4 months....which may well be just in passing...."mornin". Yet she uses Carrie's given name, and Carrie hers, and she confides what is not something Mary Jane or anyone would likely confide to a relative stranger.

I dont recall reading any testimony of a witness before that starts with a challenge from the coroner on her forthcoming evidence. To me this smacks of them being nagged by Carrie to be able to give her statement like everyone else got a chance to do.

As Frank said, to accept Carrie is to suggest collusion or error with every other witness that is believed, she doesnt have the foundation to merit the weight of opinion.

Like the "stay the course" attitude though Richard.

Cheers.

[sdreid]

She wasn't charged with perjury.

I don't believe that Barnett countered her claim that she knew Kelly either.

[Sam Flynn]

She wasn't charged with perjury.

I don't think she would have been, Stan, if she were merely in error.

I don't believe that Barnett countered her claim that she knew Kelly either.

A fair point, but one has to consider whether he felt he could have refuted her, i.e. it's quite possible that Kelly knew a number of people by name of whom Barnett was unaware (and vice versa).

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sam and all,
What is all boils down to, is the sanity , and integreity of one Caroline Maxwell, not to mention Maurice Lewis.
Maxwell was interviewed by the police, on the very day the body was discovered, one would therefore presume that she had a memory that could stay vivid for a short space of time, especially as she was returning plates when she allegedly spoke to Kelly, she would have had them in her hands whilst the conversation was taking place.
Was she therefore lying?
A respectable woman, who was prepeared to lie under oath, for the sheer hell of it... surely not.
Who was determined to stick to her guns , dispite intense questioning from Abberline himself.. surely not.
And what about Mr Lewis, who was prepeared to admit that he was playing an illegal game in the court at 9am[ pitch and toss] , and also was prepeared to admit to seeing kelly leaving her room, and return to it with milk shortly after, and admit to knowing the victim for about three years, all for what his name in a paper?
Also there was allegedly one more witness, [a tailoress] that claimed to have seen MJK in Dorset street around 830am, unfortunetly, although she told the press where she was staying, was not to be found when she was searched for.
Can we discount every witness on Dorset street that morning?
Regards Richard.

[perrymason]

Can we discount every witness on Dorset street that morning?
Regards Richard.

Based on what we see in terms of the confidence displayed by the police in entertaining any idea that Mary Jane was even alive at 8am,... Id say yes.

Clearly they thought Maxwell was in error....and as Sam pointed out on Stan's post....I dont believe anyone is suggesting she purposefully lied about the encounter....they, and I, believe she was incorrect either about whom she spoke with, or when.

By her own account she didnt know Mary at all....they had spoken twice. In 4 months. She was not introduced as a friend of Mary Janes....just a witness who says she spoke to her when the medical authorities opinions alone say Mary was already dead.

Just because a witness makes a statement, that doesnt automatically equate to the story being relevant. We have plenty of examples of superfluous statements throughout the cases.

Cheers Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Michael,
So like many you are suggesting that Maxwell was not lying, and she had the right date, but simply had the wrong person,
She was interviewed on Friday 9th, the inquest did not happen until Mon 12, are you suggesting that throughout that weekend , with all the talk about the gruesome murder going on , she would not have realised that she had talked to the wrong person, especially as she mentioned that she was familiar with Joseph Barnetts role as her ex common law at the inquest.
The fact surely is, because of her alleged sighting of the deseased, the police would have assumed that she had been mistaken, and its almost a certainty that before they asked her to give evidence at the inquest, they would have insisted she viewed the body, once it had been made as decent as possible.
They requested Hutchinson to view the body on the Tuesday, to confirm the identification, and it would have been a must that Maxwell would have a chance to admit to a mistake, before appearing under oath, by the same form of ID.
I have been so frustrated over the years, by the media suggesting that just because it does not seem right, it cannot be true, much the same with another frequent witness/suspect one GH.
No wonder this case has never been solved, with the attitude many have, ie witnesses are most 'unreliable'.
What all of them?
Regards Richard.