Maxwell

[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 ?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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]

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.

[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).

[sdreid]

She wasn't charged with perjury.

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.