Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can't get past Maxwell

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No the couple Lewis saw did not go the the passage-if the passage was to Millers Court.This is clear.It was not also in the written statement, the couple was not important.Hutchinson was not in the inquest,lets just stick with Lewis and the inquest.

    Hutch was not relevant to the 9th.
    .
    Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
    M. Pacana

    Comment


    • Question is how many Mary Kelly's were there? Maxwell could well have seen a woman she knew as Mary Kelly. Not necessarily the Mary Kelly killed in 13 millers court. May be more than one person in Millers court went by that name. In my eyes its got alias written all over it.
      Last edited by Losmandris; 09-29-2022, 02:49 PM.
      Best wishes,

      Tristan

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
        Question is how many Mary Kelly's were there? Maxwell could well have seen a woman she knew as Mary Kelly. Not necessarily the Mary Kelly killed in 13 millers court. May be more than one person in Millers court went by that name. In my eyes its got alias written all over it.
        Hi Losmandris

        Maxwell identified her by where she lived and her relationship with Barnett as well as by name, so less likely there was confusion with a different Mary Kelly.

        Comment


        • Well, in the absence of anyone else saying it I will: I think Caroline Maxwell was outright lying, not mistaken.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
            Well, in the absence of anyone else saying it I will: I think Caroline Maxwell was outright lying, not mistaken.
            Hi FM

            I have said this is one of two options for me - she lied or MJK was murdered late morning. I cannot think of a scenario in which being mistaken is more likely.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

              Hi FM

              I have said this is one of two options for me - she lied or MJK was murdered late morning. I cannot think of a scenario in which being mistaken is more likely.
              what is her motive for lying?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                what is her motive for lying?
                Hi Aethelwulf

                I actually think it more likely she told the truth than lied (based on Abberline and Dew), and MJK t.o.d. was late morning (9.00am ish). But I cannot rule out that she lied.

                I don't know why she would lie, but some suggestions I have seen put forward include:

                a) fifteen minutes of fame
                b) to provide an alibi for her husband
                c) to provide an alibi for someone else

                None of these seem particularly convincing to me.

                Comment


                • That question seems to have shut the thread down, I'm not surprised. Lying must be the most difficult to rationalize, especially when so much testimony, both non-professional & professional speaks to a much earlier time.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                    Hi Aethelwulf

                    I actually think it more likely she told the truth than lied (based on Abberline and Dew), and MJK t.o.d. was late morning (9.00am ish). But I cannot rule out that she lied.

                    I don't know why she would lie, but some suggestions I have seen put forward include:

                    a) fifteen minutes of fame
                    b) to provide an alibi for her husband
                    c) to provide an alibi for someone else

                    None of these seem particularly convincing to me.
                    Nor should they. There are no chinks in Maxwell's armour. Regrettably, some members feel that their length of membership afford them the right to label any alternative to their traditional thinking as a wacky theory. They will support the dodgy stories of Richardson and Long because that reinforces their confirmation bias, and dismiss Maxwell because it does not. No other reasoning or logic required. They will assert that they know more that Abberline, who was there and interviewed her at the time, and was unable to find any weakness in her testimony. The coroner said when he closed the inquest that there was other evidence to be presented. That could have included evidence corroborative of Maxwell's statement? We'll never know.

                    Cheers, George

                    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                    “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      That question seems to have shut the thread down, I'm not surprised. Lying must be the most difficult to rationalize, especially when so much testimony, both non-professional & professional speaks to a much earlier time.
                      Hi Jon,

                      An earlier time does not demand a lie from Maxwell, just a consideration that the woman that Maxwell spoke to was MJK, and someone else had been murdered in the room at an earlier time. MJK was allowing other women in her room. Why was McCarthy being so tolerant of her sizeable back rent? To conclude that Barnett's identification is unimpeachable is to ignore any empathisation as to the task that he faced in doing so.

                      I agree with the earlier ToD, but I find Maxwell's testimony unassailable. Add the enigma of the stomach contents and the solution seems clear to me, but not, apparently to others. A woman was murdered at No 13 Millers Court. Was her name Mary Kelly? Does it make a difference to the identity of JtR?

                      Best regards, George
                      Last edited by GBinOz; 09-30-2022, 03:59 AM.
                      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                      “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                      Comment


                      • Times 12 Nov:

                        Mrs. Maxwell, the deputy of the Commercial lodging-house, which is situated exactly opposite Miller's-court, the place in which the room of the murdered woman is situated, gave positive information that she saw Mary Jane Kelly standing at the entrance to Miller's-court at half-past 8 on Friday morning. She stated that she expressed surprise at seeing Kelly at that early hour, and asked why she was not in bed. Kelly replied, "I can't sleep. I have the horrors from drink". 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.

                        The confirmation by the milk shop puts the "wrong day" theory to rest. How much evidence has to be discarded to allow the traditionalists to cling to their rusted on opinions?
                        Last edited by GBinOz; 09-30-2022, 07:08 AM.
                        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                        “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                          Times 12 Nov:

                          Mrs. Maxwell, the deputy of the Commercial lodging-house, which is situated exactly opposite Miller's-court, the place in which the room of the murdered woman is situated, gave positive information that she saw Mary Jane Kelly standing at the entrance to Miller's-court at half-past 8 on Friday morning. She stated that she expressed surprise at seeing Kelly at that early hour, and asked why she was not in bed. Kelly replied, "I can't sleep. I have the horrors from drink". 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.

                          The confirmation by the milk shop puts the "wrong day" theory to rest. How much evidence has to be discarded to allow the traditionalists to cling to their rusted on opinions?
                          George , if that be the case, do you think the victim wasnt Mary Jane Kellly in Millers court.? Given if the sighting was between between 8.30am and 9.00am doesnt leave much time for the murder and mutilation . Thoughts ?
                          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            Hi Jon,

                            Add the enigma of the stomach contents and the solution seems clear to me, but not, apparently to others.

                            Best regards, George
                            There is no enigma though. Did Kelly bring up any food? Doesn't sound like it.

                            Coroner] What did she say ? - She said, "I've had a glass of beer, and I've brought it up again"; and it was in the road.

                            Sounds like she only brought up the beer. It is possible to be sick once and not bring up the entire stomach contents. Anyone that has been ill will know this. She most likely had some breakfast (fish would be fresh in and on the menu early). Perhaps the meal was a good bit earlier than the beer, allowing it to be partly digested.

                            However, surely this meal would have been easily traced. She can't have gone far to get it. As others have said, it's curious that a lot of people see Kelly at night but only one solid ID in the morning (as Lewis didn't actually talk to Kelly there has to be a bit of question mark over it). I believe Beadle favours the later morning T.O.D.
                            Last edited by Aethelwulf; 09-30-2022, 08:58 AM.

                            Comment


                            • I wonder if maybe she made a mistake to begin. Realised. But just stuck with it as she was worried she would get into trouble?
                              Best wishes,

                              Tristan

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                                George , if that be the case, do you think the victim wasnt Mary Jane Kellly in Millers court.? Given if the sighting was between between 8.30am and 9.00am doesnt leave much time for the murder and mutilation . Thoughts ?
                                Hi Fishy,

                                I find the evidence for a night time murder persuasive, and I also find Maxwell's evidence to be without fault. They can't both be right. The tie breaker is MJK's vomiting in the street, witnessed by Maxwell. I believe that MJK was sub-letting her room to friends for prostitution, and that she returned to find the body. It would be hard to deny that her reaction might have been been extended vomiting, which she explained to Maxwell as a consequence of excessive drinking, which may have also been a component. The vomiting would have emptied her stomach of most of its contents, but the autopsy showed a partially digested meal of fish and chips, which I believe was in the stomach of the body in No 13, which wasn't MJK. JMO.

                                Cheers, George
                                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                                “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X