Maxwell

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

not sure imo, because Maurice Lewis didn't know Mary the victim, as it seems.
But more importantly, had she been drinking that morning, more people would have seen her, don't you think ?

Best wishes

The visit by Catherine Pickell is the only logical solution I can think of for a woman standing at, or leaving Kelly's door so early in the morning. Lewis might have seen her, yet he says this woman not only went out for milk but returned.

"...a tailor named Lewis says he saw Kelly come out about 8 o'clock, and go back..."

"...Morris Lewis, a tailor, states that he was playing "pitch and toss" in the court at nine o'clock this morning, and an hour before that he had seen the woman leave the house, and return with some milk."

"...Catherine Pickell, residing in Dorset-street, states that at about 7.30 on Friday morning she called at Kelly's house to borrow a shawl,..."

I'm not so hung up about any stated times, a half-hour either way, because no-one seemed to know what the time was anyway. None of these witnesses can be said to carry a watch.

"About 7:30", and "about 8:00", means pretty much the same time among people who are guessing because they have no watch. Unless they make reference to the church clock specifically I can't see a good reason to object here.

So when Maxwell..
"..gave positive information that she saw Mary Jane Kelly standing at the entrance to Miller's-court at half-past 8 on Friday morning."

we might wonder who they actually saw, Kelly leaving the Court or returning, or Pickell arriving or leaving?

I've looked for a Catherine Pickell in the 1891 census but not located her yet, not in the vicinity of Dorset St. I'd like to know how old she was 16 or 26?, is it remotely possible she could have been mistaken for Mary Kelly by Lewis who apparently did not know Kelly anyway. Or, by Maxwell from across the street, who apparently did know her.

Then there's the pub sighting to deal with, if we are not careful we end up with a whole list of 'special pleading', not good.
I'm not prepared to accept that these sightings were Kelly, but equally to argue it wasn't is almost as ridiculous, so this is one debate I choose to leave alone with respect to being committal one way or the other.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

The annoying thing about Maxwell's statement is, if we had no medical opinion to go by concerning time of death the evidence provided by the three people, especially Maxwell, would be sufficiently solid to prove Kelly was murdered after 9:00 am.

We have been convinced by less....

Regards, Jon S.

What I find annoying is that such flimsy testimony as "oh murder" and a cat were taken seriously to place the TOD at around 4. Would MJK not have been in full rigor at 2 p.m. had she been killed at 4 a.m.?

And may I guess that you find Chapman's accepted time of death annoying too?

[DVV]

The annoying thing about Maxwell's statement is, if we had no medical opinion to go by concerning time of death the evidence provided by the three people, especially Maxwell, would be sufficiently solid to prove Kelly was murdered after 9:00 am.

We have been convinced by less....

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon

not sure imo, because Maurice Lewis didn't know Mary the victim, as it seems.
But more importantly, had she been drinking that morning, more people would have seen her, don't you think ?

Best wishes

[Wickerman]

Maxwell qualité filtre, I must say.

The annoying thing about Maxwell's statement is, if we had no medical opinion to go by concerning time of death the evidence provided by the three people, especially Maxwell, would be sufficiently solid to prove Kelly was murdered after 9:00 am.

We have been convinced by less....

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Maxwell qualité filtre, I must say.

[Wickerman]

... The fact remains that not one, but two witnesses were adamant that they had seen Mary Kelly that morning.

Actually three.

- 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, and that she was wearing a woollen cross-over that I had not seen her wear for a considerable time". On inquiries being made at the milkshop indicated by the woman her statement was found to be correct, and the cross-over was also found in Kelly's room.

- Another young woman, whose name is known, has also informed the police that she is positive she saw Kelly between half-past 8 and a quarter to 9 on Friday morning.

- Maurice Lewis,..... soon after ten o'clock in the morning he was playing with others at pitch and toss in M'Carthy's-cour, when he heard a lad call out "Copper," and he and his companions rushed away and entered a beer-house at the corner of Dorset- street, known as Ringer's. He was positive than on going in he saw Mary Jane Kelly drinking with some other people, but is not certain whether there was a man amongst them.
Times, 12 Nov. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

culprit

Hello Bridewell. If "MJK" were killed in the morning, do you see the market person whom Maxwell identified as talking with "MJK" as her killer?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

The Coroner

Hi,
On Forums there is a press cutting ,that apparently gives the impression, that the police believed Maxwell, but considered her sighting to have been on the Thursday morning.
That being the case , why was she summoned to appear as a witness at the inquest, as her sighting would have been irrelevant,, would it not?
According to what we know , her [ Maxwell's] activities on the morning of the 9TH were checked, and double checked, and were found to be in conjunction with her sighting, and make it near impossible for a 24 hour mistake.
The police were aware that her statement went against medical opinion given by their own police doctors, yet she was still required to give evidence under oath, which is rather strange if they believed she was twenty four hours out, unless they wanted her to admit her mistake publicly ...
but she did not, and remained adamant.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard.

Good point. I suspect that the coroner had sight of the written statements and decided that there was a need for her evidence to be given in person.
Caroline Maxwell's evidence, like that of Lewis, is inconvenient to a lot of people because it doesn't "fit" with the night-time murder scenario. Not only that, but it pretty much eliminates GH, Blotchy Face & Astrakhan Man as Ripper suspects, all of whom seem to have strong Casebook support. The fact remains that not one, but two witnesses were adamant that they had seen Mary Kelly that morning. To my mind it is more likely that both were telling the truth than that both were either lying or mistaken.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
On Forums there is a press cutting ,that apparently gives the impression, that the police believed Maxwell, but considered her sighting to have been on the Thursday morning.
That being the case , why was she summoned to appear as a witness at the inquest, as her sighting would have been irrelevant,, would it not?
According to what we know , her [ Maxwell's] activities on the morning of the 9TH were checked, and double checked, and were found to be in conjunction with her sighting, and make it near impossible for a 24 hour mistake.
The police were aware that her statement went against medical opinion given by their own police doctors, yet she was still required to give evidence under oath, which is rather strange if they believed she was twenty four hours out, unless they wanted her to admit her mistake publicly ...
but she did not, and remained adamant.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

There is indeed a third option, namely that the good Dr Bond was mistaken. Kelly's body was discovered at 10.45am. By the time that Bond got to examine the body it was 2pm. I quote direct from a letter sent, by him, in response to one from the Home Office:

"In the Dorset Street case the body was lying on the bed at the time of my visit, 2 o'clock, quite naked (n.b. he got that wrong too!) and mutilated as in the annexed report-
Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say, with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in"

This is wrong. Rigor mortis usually commences after about three hours, not the six to which Bond refers.

Niderkorn's exhaustive study (1872) of the on-set & progression of Rigor Mortis is still a referenced standard.

We may readily accept that Dr Bond was fully aquainted with the study and the times given. There are also other conditions to consider which affect the onset of rigor mortis. For instance, cold delays the onset, whereas warmth accelerates it. The physical make-up of the victim also makes a difference, and whether the victim was totally relaxed before she was murdered or had physically resisted in her own defence.
These are a few factors which affect how soon rigor begins and the duration of rigor in the body.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=6oPMSMW4m2UC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=niderkorn+rigor&source=bl&ots=NWS9qbm1cA&sig=Q3PBpogoC2ZFeMX6wFdXWgPgH9A&hl=en&ei=h4_eTsy4O8Ln0QGDhMzUBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=niderkorn%20rigor&f=false

http://books.google.ca/books?id=xUygAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA13&lpg=RA1-PA13&dq=niderkorn+rigor&source=bl&ots=Mq_3I8iyPH&sig=3V91uEe5gBuT5D7Vw6gr-0nbeIU&hl=en&ei=h4_eTsy4O8Ln0QGDhMzUBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=niderkorn%20rigor&f=false

Rigor may begin (set-in) as soon as 2 hrs post-mortem, or as late as 12-13 hrs PM. I would assume Dr Bond weighed the effects that blood-loss and room temperature had on the onset of rigor in the case of Mary Kelly.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

level headed woman Mrs Maxwell , who not only new MJK, but also Barnett.

Richard,

Not every liar is easy to see through.

I think the biggest obstacle to your theory is that Jack was a night time killer; clearly he believed he was at his best in those conditions.

So, not quite a habit of a lifetime, but why change a winning formula?

[lynn cates]

rumour

Hello Richard. Completely agree. Yet another conundrum.

Could all be rumour.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hello Lynn,
Yes it appears a lot was garbled in the Ripper case, the whole accounts of Kelly with a boy appear strange, even Barnett is quoted as having a boy aged 7-8 years staying with her.
Surely that Barnett quote, and the resident who claimed that she [ Mary] could not bear to see her son starving, also the tale of a man in Kelly's room sending her son,who was returning to her room from a neighbours, .. on a errand., are all false...or are they?
Reports from the Alice McKenzie murder, have Alice spending time at the music hall with a blind boy named Dyson, this was garbled into Mary Kelly also being passionate about a blind boy.
The trouble with this amazing case of ours, is witness accounts whilst appearing to mean one thing , actually are to use that word again ''Garbled'', which surely adds to much confusion. and much speculation.
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

milk

Hello Richard. Funny you should mention milk. A very early report in "The Echo" indicates that MJK and her "little boy" were out to buy milk at the time of the slaying.

Wonder if they had spoken to Mrs. Maxwell and garbled her story?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

staying put

Hello Bridewell.

"As for the possibility that the body is not Kelly's: Why not? There was facial mutilation, but not necessarily for the purpose of disguise. It has been argued that Kelly, because she was heavily in debt, caused someone else to be killed so that she could move away and start a new life. She could have moved away and started a new life without resorting to, or arranging, the murder of a substitute."

Indeed. And if she is not dead, why stay put and risk having the ruse seen through?

Cheers.
LC