Maxwell

[packers stem]

Strange ,so much doubt about Caroline Maxwell yet we believe as fact witnesses such as Lawende/Levy/Long.
On a scale of 1 to 10 i'd put maxwell at an 8 or 9 with the others down at 2 or 3.(Daylight not darkness,lived across the road,spoke to her and willing to testify).
The age old ripperology trap of only wanting the facts that fit a particular theory i'm afraid.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Strange ,so much doubt about Caroline Maxwell yet we believe as fact witnesses such as Lawende/Levy/Long.

Caroline Maxwell described the Mary Kelly that she saw as being physically different to MJK, she also said that she didn't recognise her clothes -do we know if a velvet bodice was found in the room with the neatly folded clothes ? She said that 'Mary' was usually alone -yet MJK was known for parading around with two or three friends, and must have gone out with Joe.

Although 'Mary' told Maxwell that she'd already had a drink in the Britannia, and was later seen with a docker at that pub, no one else could confirm having seen nor served MJK there -yet MJK was well known to them. Same goes for the milk seller.

Although Maxwell may well have been taken to identify that terribly mutilated face, in the Stride case a women ('Malcolm ?) was taken to view the body 3 times and identified her 'without a shadow of a doubt' as her sister: she was mistaken.

If Mary had vomited and had drunk beer -how come that a fish supper was found in her stomach ? (not traces of a fish supper, beer, and signs of alchoholic bile and recent vomiting/inflamation..nor milk).

The milk would be 'fresh' -why is there no mention of fresh milk in the room ? Old milk would probably turn with the heat of the fire, but fresh milk wouldn't have time to (assuming that the fire had been going for a while, before the fresh milk was bought).

I believe that Maxwell saw the wrong Mary Kelly.

As to other witnesses being believed : Wolf Vanderlinden makes an excellent case for the fact that Mrs Long was mistaken in her identification of Annie Chapman, and Cadoche never said that the noise he heard came from next door but 'somewhere around'
Considerable Doubt and the Death of Annie Chapman

The best witnesses would appear to be Lawende and Levy -however, following Richard's comments on the lack of noise of two people crossing Mitre Square and not being heard by Morris, a SMALL doubt did occur to me as to whether JtR and Eddowes didn't simply come in from the other end of the square and stop at the nearest spot -where the body was found, in which case Lawende wrongly identified Eddowes.

[claire]

That said, it takes a particularly callous witness to turn up at the inquest, see Joe Barnett, realise a mistake had been made and then pretend things were fine. What we 'know' about MJ comes from other witnesses; what they have seen, once or twice, may in their minds be the way things were with Mary (often with friends, usually in a clean white apron, lovely girl when sober, 'of sober habits' and so on). I'm not sure we can pick what we want from that and discount Maxwell...and, as for the alcohol content of the stomach, goodness, there *should* have been, if she was killed when they said she was, given that she was spreeish, drunk as hell, a bit merry or whichever of the euphemisms for drunkenness you fancy.

[packers stem]

Hi Rubyretro
You make some valid points about the stomach contents.But they just confirm to me that the body was not that of MJK.
Medical evidence suggests time of death between 4 and 6.
If stride's sister was unable to identify Stride non-mutilated face why do we believe Barnett did anything more than glance at the remains placed before him,with all identifying features removed remember.Barnett expected to see Kelly,he'd not have wanted to look too closely.As for her being stitched up,i very much doubt that as there was little left to stitch.
I believe the medical evidence,i also believe Maxwell and Lewis.This to my mind makes it impossible for the body to have been MJK.
Once you've eliminated the impossible....Thank you for that Sherlock

[Rubyretro]

.

But they just confirm to me that the body was not that of MJK

.[/QUOTE]

I think that it depends on how often you see the person, and how close
you are, as to whether you would be able to identify their face and body if they had been butchered like Mary.

Mrs Malcolm, who thought Liz was her sister, probably hadn't seen her sister for some years..

Mrs Maxwell was allegedly only an acquaintance of 'Mary' -a woman whom
she'd crossed about twice in four months.

However Joe Barnett had recently been living and sleeping with Mary. He would surely recognise :-
-her hair colour and type of hair..the thickness and curl, style, and implantation on the forehead
-her ears
-the shape and colours of her eyes...irises are very individual
-her hands...the shape, size and skin texture, shape of fingernails
-feet ..ditto
-the size and the height of the woman in the bed

Don't you think that you would be able to identify your partner or child in the same circumstances ?

[claire]

I think that's correct...regardless of the veracity of the Maxwell testimony, I don't think there's a question about the identity of the victim. Barnett had only seen MJ the night before and, as you note RR, children and lovers are easier to identify than estranged siblings.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Mrs Maxwell saw Barnett at the inquest , she may have even attended the funeral?, she said she knew of Barnett, and his relationship with the deseased.
I find it incredible that this witness is so disbelieved, the police would have done everything to discredit her alleged sighting, as it went against their own police doctors report, and T.O.D would naturally be important for their inquiries, even in 1888.
She would have been asked to physically describe the woman she saw, and then check it against other descriptions, if they did not match in some detail, they would not have entertained her, and request her presence at the inquest.
She also had the entire weekend to realize any mistake, on day/person, one can imagine that the whole road was engulfed in the murder of the milllers court woman...sighs of 'Poor Mary Jane' , and all kinds of people recalling knowing the dead woman.
Yet dispite this she attends the inquest, is warned 'she should be careful', and without hesitation repeats what she told the police on the 9th.
Maxwell has been described, as a woman of 'Respectability'. and level headed.. taking all of this into acccount ,and the fact that her movements between 8am-9am [9th] were checked , and verified, suggest to me that it would be extremely unlikely, that she did not see MJK when she specified.
So where does that leave us.. A morning murder? surely not ... 1888 doctors were accurate..were they not?
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

I find it incredible that this witness is so disbelieved, the police would have done everything to discredit her alleged sighting, as it went against their own police doctors report, and T.O.D would naturally be important for their inquiries, even in 1888.

OK Richard -consider this : Maurice Lewis claimed that he saw Mary Kelly drinking in a pub at 10am...yet the body was found at 10.45am. Given the time needed to inflict the carnage on Mary, it is impossible that Mary would have time to walk home, get murdered and butchered, go cold and rigor mortis kick in, and the murderer to leave (not being seen).
Do you believe that Maurice Lewis was lying or mistaken ?
Why would you put so much faith in Maxwell, but not in Lewis ?
By what means do you pick and choose witnesses ?

She would have been asked to physically describe the woman she saw, and then check it against other descriptions, if they did not match in some detail, they would not have entertained her, and request her presence at the inquest.

[QUOTE]
They were probably obliged to have her at the inquest , when she stuck to her story. Furthermore, a man in the courtyard also said that he saw Mary Kelly go to buy milk around the same time -yet while Maxwell's and the man's (name escapes me) agree on the physical description of the woman they saw, that description (short and stout), doesn't match that of MJK. We know that MJK was about 5'7 -as tall as average man of the time, and from the
crime scene photos we can see her general build (slim arm, muscular calf) and the photos we've seen of the body, support engravings. 'Mary' and 'Kelly' were very common names (had Maxwell said Marie Jeanette it would lend more weight), and it is probable that the man in the court, Maxwell and Lewis saw the same woman, that they knew as Mary Kelly -who wasn't MJK.

Maxwell has been described, as a woman of 'Respectability'. and level headed.. taking all of this into acccount ,and the fact that her movements between 8am-9am [9th] were checked , and verified, suggest to me that it would be extremely unlikely, that she did not see MJK when she specified.[/

QUOTE][QUOTE]
She didn't say that she saw MJK -she said that she saw a woman that she knew as Mary Kelly.
Her movements were checked, but neither the milk seller nor the pub had seen MJK. Besides Lewis, and the man in the Court, no one else came forward to say that they had seen MJK -who surely would have been a well known face in the neighbourhood.

So where does that leave us.. A morning murder? surely not ... 1888 doctors were accurate..were they not?

Obviously, they were not 100% correct and gave opinions..that's all. Yet I don't believe that they were a bunch of charlatans..they had some experience
of stomach contents, body temperatures, decomposition and rigor mortice.
That they were off by a bit ok -but not by so long. Also, I believe that we are unfair to the doctors..in the Chapman murder, the doctor put the T.O.D
at about 4.30am...yet it conflicted with witness statements putting the T.O.D nearer to 5.30am. Therefore the witnesses are believed over the doctor -but if you go with Wolf Vanderlinden (and I do)...the doctor was actually right.

[Rubyretro]

Richard : I know that you read this from 'quick links'..answer..please..

[packers stem]

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.

[caz]

Also, I believe that we are unfair to the doctors..in the Chapman murder, the doctor put the T.O.D
at about 4.30am...yet it conflicted with witness statements putting the T.O.D nearer to 5.30am. Therefore the witnesses are believed over the doctor -but if you go with Wolf Vanderlinden (and I do)...the doctor was actually right.

Hi Rubyretro,

You might be surprised by the views our Wolf has expressed regarding MJK's T.O.D. In this extreme case of human butchery, I believe he is of the opinion that the doctors would have been out of their depth and that the victim could indeed have died considerably later than their latest estimate, which would give Maxwell's sighting some credibility.

Incidentally, I don't think Maxwell said anything about MJK buying milk. It was Maxwell herself who was going for some, wasn't it? Whoever she saw with the horrors of drink upon her appeared to be in no fit state to buy milk or to talk about doing so.

For me, Maxwell's tale has a ring of truth about it although she could of course have mistaken another woman for an already deceased Kelly. While I take the other alleged morning sightings with a bigger pinch of salt, Wolf's take on the T.O.D makes too much sense to me to get rid of Maxwell just yet.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

Caz -I'm not suprised that Wolf Vanderlinden cast doubt on Kelly's T.O.D. because he touches on it briefly as an introduction to his dissertation on Chapman, when talking about things which have passed into 'Ripper Lore' (such as Cadoche saying that he heard a woman in the yard of no 29 saying 'no!'), which are untrue.

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.

I was under the impression that the man in the Court (playing a game ?) said that Mary went to buy milk, and then returned ?

Overall, the food in the stomach, the fire, and the cry of 'Murder!' make me think that Mary wasn't killed in the morning.

It is strange that in other murder cases (Jason Swift ??), witnesses have claimed to see the victim after the known T.O.D.

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

[lynn cates]

strategy

Hello Packer. You have an interesting theory regarding MJK. I have heard variants on it, always to the effect that someone other than MJK was killed by mistake whilst MJK was the intended target.

Although intrigued by this line of thought, I wonder what MJK's strategy might be in lingering near Miller's Court after having achieved a narrow escape? It seems to me that, given:

1. she is targeted by whomever,

2. someone is mistaken as her and butchered instead,

3. MJK discovers the butchery and the killer's mistake ("Oh, murder!"),

would it not make sense for her to flee Miller's Court and not look back? Surely by loitering about she is in some way inviting her assailant to discover his error and do a better job next time?

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Lynn, LYNN -where did you buy your 'kid gloves' -I would so love to put in a bulk order..
..to distribute to people replying to me..

[packers stem]

Hi Lynn
Oh dear,Mary Kelly.The mystery surrounding this has set my mind bouncing around over the years.
OK well i'll do my best.
Mary was seen talking to a respectably dressed man a couple of days beforehand by thomas Bowyer.This is probably the most reliable of all eyewitness testimony as it was daytime and Bowyer was her rent collector.
We all know the 'collar and cuffs' description so there's no need to go into that here,we also all know i'm sure that PAV was nicknamed 'collar and cuffs' by the press although before i'm shouted down that's not who i'm saying it was but whoever it was he was distinctly out of place.
Was he informing Mary of a forthcoming meeting on the 9th?
Was he advising her what would happen and how should she go about things?

When Mary was so scared of someone at this particular time wouldn't she have made more of an effort to keep Barnett around her?
Why did she pretend to be illiterate to Barnett so that he could 'read about the murders' to her?
Why did she allow other women to share her room?
Mary told more than one person the day before the murder that she intended to 'make away with herself' or 'go back to Ireland'.

It's the Hutchinson,Lewis/Kennedy stuff that's absorbing.
Suppose for a minute that the police believed there was an accomplice watching Millers Court from the statement by Lewis.
On the 10th they announce a pardon for any accomplice.
Hutchinson's statement appears after the inquest in a second attempt to get an accomplice to turn himself in,the statement from Hutchinson is too rediculous for words especially the 'red' handkerchief,remember how dark these streets were compared to artificial light these days,red looks black in the dark does it not?I think the idea of a red handkerchief came from the Eddowes reports.
I suspect this was all fiction and that Hutchinson was never in Dorset street that night,maybe he was known to Abberline and was approached as a name for a mythical statement designed purely in the hope of scaring a possible accomplice.
Now another tricky one ,Mrs.Kennedy
It is widely believed that she and Sarah Lewis were one and the same and that is probably the case,but lets suppose they are not the same and that the star got them mixed up and applied the Bethnal green road bits to both in error.
Mrs.Kennedy claimed to be in Dorset Street at around 3.00-3.30 not the 2.30 of Lewis.
She saw a respectaby dresses but intoxicated young man talking to an intoxicated woman and he said 'are you coming?' and the woman turned away.A poorly dressed woman without a hat (as in maxwell's sighting of Kelly)was standing by.
The times reported that Mrs.Kennedy was interviewed by Abberline so that does add some credence however small that may be.
I suspect Kelly knew that her life was in danger,she was an intended victim and that she was tipped off by 'collar and cuffs' whoever that may be.
Someone was set up to take her place in that room whether by Kelly or someone else.The laughable 'oh murder' rather than 'aaaaaaarrrggghhhh' which you'd expect seems deliberate to indicate a time of death only.
Kelly was probably advised to disappear immediately but i suspect that she had to go back to her room for something unknown and that would have been enough to make her throw up in the street.
I've been sure in my own mind for many years that Mary Kelly survived and maybe the extreme facial mutilations of the victim were added to enable her to create her new life without being chased.
I don't follow any particular theory as to why but i will happily entertain any theory which reaches a similar conclusion,whether that be the Fenians,Barnett or a conspiracy.
These are just my thoughts and now i'll duck and take cover