Maxwell

[The Good Michael]

The fact that Maxwell went to the funeral does not prove she knew Kelly.

It proves that she was taken seriously as a witness and that it was believed that she knew Kelly. I don't think there can be real doubt in that regard.

Mike

[Wickerman]

I beleive maxwell had the right day but the wrong "Mary Kelly" also.

Agreed. At least, thats the most rational explanation I can think of.

The common argument some like to promote that Maxwell confused the day is hard to apply in practical terms.

Because Maxwell lived & worked right there in Dorset St. then we know that by 11:30-12:00 on that Friday morning the police had taken possession of Millers Court and Kelly's murder was common knowledge.

Maxwell was not reflecting on possibly seeing Mary Kelly two or three days previous, she claimed to have seen Kelly just 3 hours ago. Three hours before she learned that Kelly had been murdered.
Putting ourselves in her shoes, what has just happened to 'you' (anyone) only three hours ago that 'you' could possibly confuse with a day or two ago?

Suggesting Maxwell confused the day when she was speaking at the inquest on the 12th is completely missing the point that Maxwell knew that Kelly had been murdered just three hours after she claimed to have seen her alive in the street.
I don't know what the solution is, but Maxwell's statement deserves to be explained.


On the other hand you cannot take Maxwell's testimony in isolation.
Maurice Lewis was playing pitch & toss in Millers Court when he claimed to see Mary leave to go out about 8:00 am Friday morning, and saw her later in the Britannia.

We ignore these statements because they do not fit with the testimony of others, and tend to conflict with the medical testimony.

Reasonably then, we must ask if these sighting were not Kelly, but someone dressed like her, and look like her? (red hair and all), then who was it?

Is there something more to Kelly's murder that we have been completely oblivious to all these years - and I'm not talking of conspiracies.

Regards, Jon S.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Wickerman.
I agree partly, except I do not believe she got the 'wrong person', or the 'wrong day',we have the sworn statement of a level headed woman Mrs Maxwell , who not only new MJK, but also Barnett.
Albeit, she may have only spoke to Mary once or twice, but appears to have been a person who took notice around her, the term ''Nosey Parker '' springs to mind.
So what are the alternatives?
1]Kelly was killed after 9am
2] Someone else was the victim, which would indicate a planned, premeditated, killing , that belongs in the annuals of fiction.
As for Maurice Lewis.
To admit that he was playing a illegal game at 9am , until someone shouted ''Copper'' would be foolhardy would it not? if this was accurate timing then was a policeman approaching the court?
Oh dear ...Hello Hello Hello what have we here, clear off I want to murder someone in that room..
Ha ha.
Regards Richard.

[Bridewell]

No Third Option?

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.

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. Keep an open mind about the victim's identity? Okay fine, but keep an open mind about the time of death also. Count back three hours from 2pm and you reach 11am. We know Kelly was dead before 10.45am, but not how long before.

Keep an open mind too about Maxwell & Lewis. A time of death of, say, 10.20am does not conflict with their accounts and would be 3 hours & 40 minutes before Bond noted that rigor mortis had commenced. We're told that the mutilations to Kelly "must have" taken at least 2 hours, but what evidence is there to support that without duplicating the injuries with the same weapon(s) and we don't know what weapons the killer had at his disposal.

Walter Dew had this to say, in his memoirs, about Caroline Maxwell:

"If Mrs Maxwell had been a sensation seeker - one of those women who live for the limelight - it would have been easy to discredit her story. She was not. She seemed a sane and sensible woman, and her reputation was excellent. In one way at least her version fitted into the facts as known. We knew that Marie had been drinking the previous night, and, as this was not a habit of hers, illness the next morning was just what might have been expected.

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. She could simply have left and changed her name (again?).

I prefer to believe that witnesses, with no reason to lie, are telling the truth and to draw my conclusions based upon their evidence. Dr Bond's understanding of rigor mortis conflicts with the modern view of that phenomenon. He was in error. Maxwell & Lewis, in my view, were not.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Bridewell,
In absolute agreement with you, I have argued for years regarding the T.O.D, and modern day medical knowledge is vastly different then 1888, Rigor Mortis is not a science today, it certainly was no more then guesswork then, anal temperatures were not taken for example.
Mrs Maxwell certainly saw someone she absolutely believed to have been the victim, her time-line that morning was checked and verified, and clothing described was found in Kelly's room.
She swore on oath, despite being reminded that her account was not the same as medical opinion, and although not recorded, I would be surprised if she was not taking to view the body, as her sighting was so disputed, the police would have given her every chance to realise a mistake.
I have mentioned before on Casebook, that around 1973 I read the following from a source I cannot recall unfortunately.
It appeared to have been part of Mrs Maxwell's statement which I have never seen since and the following words were featured ,allegedly spoken by Maxwell.''Her eyes looked queer as if in a heavy cold''.
If that was indeed the impression that she got, when addressing Kelly at 815am on the morning of the 9th, then I would suggest that the ''Oh I have lost my hanker-chief'' that Hutchinson stated he heard Kelly utter at 215am , might indeed suggest that Mary Kelly had a cold.
The significance there is, if medical opinion was correct, and the time of death was around 3am-4am, then how could Maxwell know of Kelly's possible ailment.
She saw her the previous day...
But she was interviewed on the 9th just a few hours after the sighting.
She was returning plates when she spoke to Mary,,which was confirmed, returned that very day, she went to fetch milk, which was confirmed by the shop keeper, as clear as a bell, as he had not seen her for a long time.
That Maxwell reference and its whereabouts has always puzzled me, the only similar account comes from Mc'Cormack's publication ie''All muffled up like with a cold'', so it was not from that source, although clearly he also had seen an account, which apparently is no more.
Anyway a fascinating sighting that needs more discussion.
Regards Richard.

[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

[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

[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]

rumour

Hello Richard. Completely agree. Yet another conundrum.

Could all be rumour.

Cheers.
LC

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.