Maxwell

[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.

[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).

[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

[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.

[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?

[claire]

Okay. But then she set up Barnett, McCarthy and whoever else may possibly have been pulled in to view the body to say that it was certainly her. She'd have had no control over who saw the body and, unless she was participant in ensuring the victim was unidentifiable, could not have been certain that someone could have said that it just wasn't her. That would then leave Barnett and a few others in a tricky situation--why, then, would he just hang around?

Nup, whatever the truth of the Maxwell scenario--that she was either mistaken, or the murder took place later in the day than we fancy--I'm afraid we have to accept the victim was the woman known as MJK.

[packers stem]

Hi Claire
Only Barnett and McCarthy would need to be on-side.If they identified the body as Kelly ,and as there was no family forthcoming bizarrely,then no-one else's word would have held any sway.
There's ,as far as i'm aware, no evidence that Barnett did 'hang around' after the inquest.Chris Scott has shown that he couldn't be found in the east end in the 1891 census although his brothers were.The closest Chris could find was married with a daughter and living in Kent.

[claire]

I don't understand that logic, I'm afraid. Barnett and McCarthy would be in no better position than Kelly to determine who viewed the body. They may well have reasonably assumed they would be asked to do so, and that their word may have been enough, but they couldn't guarantee it. What of her associates? Her neighbours? Any one, or four, of them could have been asked.

And Barnett did stick around after the inquest (which in itself would have taken a steely faith that no one else disputed Kelly's identification). He may not appear on the 1891 census (which, anyhow, took place 2 and a half years later), but he certainly returned to the East End, if he ever left.

[packers stem]

Hi Claire
Could you point me to the evidence that shows Barnett to be living in the area in the months following the murder.
He was not on the 1891 or 1901 census in London,it seems he reappeared in 1906.
Secondly,we are on a thread in which people are attempting to justify why they dismiss the strong evidence of one of her neighbours who saw her alive and unskinned and yet you appear to believe that her neighbours could have believably identified the remains in Millers Court.
The only chance of neighbours being used for id would be if her former partner or landlord could not be found.Either of whom would surely only have taken the briefest look at the remains,so even if you believe that neither of them knew that Kelly was planning a disappearing act,which i don't, they would both have had no reason whatsoever to believe that the remains were anyone other than her,nothing to identify really.

[claire]

Hi Claire
Could you point me to the evidence that shows Barnett to be living in the area in the months following the murder.
He was not on the 1891 or 1901 census in London,it seems he reappeared in 1906.
Secondly,we are on a thread in which people are attempting to justify why they dismiss the strong evidence of one of her neighbours who saw her alive and unskinned and yet you appear to believe that her neighbours could have believably identified the remains in Millers Court.
The only chance of neighbours being used for id would be if her former partner or landlord could not be found.Either of whom would surely only have taken the briefest look at the remains,so even if you believe that neither of them knew that Kelly was planning a disappearing act,which i don't, they would both have had no reason whatsoever to believe that the remains were anyone other than her,nothing to identify really.

I like the census. I really do. But having worked on censuses in various countries, I have less faith in their infallibility than you, apparently.

As for your second statement--thanks. I'm perfectly aware of what thread we are on. I am not really interested in whether people are trying to justify why they dismiss Maxwell's evidence; it's open for debate. But if she were mistaken, then I think that does not thereby reduce the ability of other associates to recognise Kelly.

Lastly, I'm not sure whether you are arguing that Barnett and McCarthy were in on it, or whether they just didn't bother to look very hard, as there was 'nothing' left. I think, if the latter, then that's off too. Kelly would have had to pick someone very like her to get away with this...one looks at the hair, her hands, and they are distinct and recognisable. Sorry, but it's not just facial features that identify a person. She had only, in the past few hours, been killed--this wasn't a case of identifying a few bones and decomposed flesh.

Then again, with those committed to a Kelly conspiracy/disappearing act, there's no arguing against them.

[packers stem]

Hi Claire
I am of the opinion that Barnett and McCarthy probably were in on it but not necessarily so.If Barnett can't be found for another 18 years then the possibility remains ,however small,that Barnett had arranged to follow Kelly and meet up again away from Spitalfields.IF Kelly knew she was in grave danger it could be possible that Barnett and McCarthy could have agreed to help her.On the other hand if the danger to Kelly was only known to herself then she only needed to find someone of similar build to herself with similar hair maybe.
Whereas some suspect the murder of Stride was not that of JTR,I differ in that I suspect this Millers Court murder was not of the same hand/hands but was carried out by a group protecting a known associate,Kelly.This explains the extreme facial mutilations.
Unfortunately i find your assertion that someone could be identified by their hands as quite rediculous.We're presumably not talking nail varnish,rings or tattoo here are we?Love and hate on her knuckles perhaps?I can positively state that in no way could i positively identify my partners hand against that of another woman of similar build without any of the above man-made identifiers.Definitely not.
Kelly's hair was apparently red,well lets face it so was the rest of the room.You must believe that Barnett and McCarthy spent a good deal of time looking over the body,i would suggest that to most people this would not be possible to do,staring into the eyes,looking at the ears,hands or anything else for any length of time would have been extremely difficult for the average person,especially if you already suspected it was a loved one,i'd have thought a quick flick of the blanket or whatever covered her to be far more likely.
I'm glad you say that Maxwell's testimony is open to debate as is all testimony but hers is the most positive we have through the whole series of murders.Unfortunately for those who still convince themselves we are looking for the loan serial killer,the type of killer that just wasn't around in those days,and whose minds remain full of profiles that should remain in the second half of the twentieth century and not the nineteenth then Maxwell's testimony just doesn't fit so must be ignored.
Yet these same people will say things like 'we KNOW Kelly went with blotchy etc etc',sorry but we KNOW nothing of the sort and anyone who dismisses Maxwell is on very shaky ground using any eyewitness testimony.

[Raoul's Obsession]

Hi Claire
IF Kelly knew she was in grave danger it could be possible that Barnett and McCarthy could have agreed to help her.On the other hand if the danger to Kelly was only known to herself then she only needed to find someone of similar build to herself with similar hair maybe.

Hi Packers Stem,

I don't want to wade in to too many of the points you made but I think anyone would find it very hard to lure some person who resembles them in numerous ways to their room to await their slaughter.

How would Kelly, Barnett or McCarthy find someone who fits the bill and get them to stay in MJ Kelly's room until such time as the murderer shows? What pretext would you privide to such a person? Surely they would smell a rat? You're also suggesting that McCarthy and Barnett would be accomplices to murder in order to save Mary. Why not just go to the police?

[packers stem]

Hi R.O ,hope you've got an open mind
For Kelly to know of her impending doom ,and to have been forewarned(which is where Bowyer's man from a couple of days previously could come in) she would have to be caught up in something pretty important.If you imagine she was involved in a particular political group or pretending to be someone she was not in order to gather information to aid a political process then you get an idea where i'm coming from.
Nothing of Kellys supposed past (if that was her name) has been provable,and with what information she gave to Barnett(or he chose to pass on) ,you'd suspect something would be out there!
Barnett's subsequent disappearing act and some rather strange behaviour from McCarthy including the rent arrears add fuel and cause me to suspect that they were all linked,Mrs McCarthy apparently forwarding Kellys posessions,what might these be?and why do we have no mention of a contact in any official files,surely this information would have been demanded from Mrs McCarthy and the relatives found.
The RIC in Millers Court after the murder???
Kellys group would have to 'create' a Kelly murder in order to protect her and enable her to escape.I think if Kelly had the help of a powerful group then finding a suitable surrogate would be the easy part.
Knowing that any family were untraceable then the identification would almost certainly be down to Barnett and/or McCarthy.
I think it was Bond's report that stated that 'every identifiable feature had been removed' from the body,rather convenient don't you think,as if by design.
Think of Kennedy's report of two women and a man about 3.30.If she was Sarah Lewis why was the hour moved back,why were the two women removed ,one at a time(see abberlines crossing out).Just like in the Elizabeth Long/Darrell case a change of name followed by a change in what was seen and a change in time.In the end we are left with a man watching the court,if Abberline would have had another 24 hours with her we might have just had the wideawake hat wearing a pair of glasses and singing on the steps of the lodging house.You'll gather that i suspect the first Kennedy sighting to be as likely as anything just as the initial Darrell sighting where she said she would not be able to identify either person in Hanbury street also to be more convincing.In that case it appears someone wanted the time of death shifted forward an hour for some reason,in Dorset Street backward an hour with less people.
I now start to wonder if Scwartz was chased by a man with a knife or a pipe.
All the best

[claire]

Kellys group would have to 'create' a Kelly murder in order to protect her and enable her to escape.I think if Kelly had the help of a powerful group then finding a suitable surrogate would be the easy part.

The easier option by far, if someone needed to escape, would be to b*gger off to Birmingham or Boulogne. People do runners all the time and there is absolutely no need whatsoever to cut up some poor double in order to disappear effectively. And before, with all due respect, you get started on the Mary Kelly was so important that people would track her down if she just disappeared argument, firstly, why was she broke, soliciting, begging for cash et cetera, and secondly, where are the slaughtered doubles of all the other politically important desaparecidos? In cases like this, I think people tend to take the easiest option, and the easiest option is absolutely not the scenario you are suggesting.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have always been pro Maxwell , and believe that saw saw Mary as she stated , at the time she stated.
Very few of us dispute that she got the wrong day, abut suggest she had the wrong person.
That being the case the Daily Mail 10th Nov has a statement made by her on the 9th, whch includes two intresting observations.
That Mary kelly spoke with an impediment.
That she came from Limerick, and was well connected.
The former of these would have been easily verified by the police by asking others that knew her, and would have either enhanced, or discredited Maxwells account.
The latter remark that she came from 'Limerick' must surely point hugely to Mrs Maxwell having spoken to the right person, so no wonder she stuck to her convictions.
As for the description which includes stout, have a look at the police illustration sketches, I tend to believe we have painted Mjk as some victorian beauty.
So if its the right day, and right person what have we?
Regards Richard.