Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can't get past Maxwell

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

  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    extended vomiting
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    excessive drinking.

    Cheers, George
    Funny definition of extended vomiting and excessive drinking: 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.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

      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


      Hi George , it does certainly throws up some interesting questions if in fact the victim was a friend of kelly or a prostitute she lent her room to that night.

      If i may , One such question would be, if it was just a random choice and opportunity by the killer, what reason could Mary Kelly have to vanish from the face of the earth .? Wouldnt she want to help the police in their investigation with any information she might have that might help catch the killer? just as other witnesses and persons of interest did throughout all the murders. ?

      '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 FISHY1118 View Post



        Hi George , it does certainly throws up some interesting questions if in fact the victim was a friend of kelly or a prostitute she lent her room to that night.

        If i may , One such question would be, if it was just a random choice and opportunity by the killer, what reason could Mary Kelly have to vanish from the face of the earth .? Wouldnt she want to help the police in their investigation with any information she might have that might help catch the killer? just as other witnesses and persons of interest did throughout all the murders. ?
        Hi Fishy,

        Perhaps the answer may lie in this interview given to Lloyd's weekly 11 Nov by Lizzie Albrook:

        "About the last thing she said was, "Whatever you do don't you do wrong and turn out as I have."
        She had often spoken to me in this way, and warned me against going on the streets as she had done.
        She told me, too, that she was heartily sick of the life she was leading, and she wished that she had money enough to go back to Ireland, where her people lived.
        I don't believe she would have gone out as she did if she had not been obliged to do so in order to keep herself from starvation.
        She had talked to me about her friends several times, and, on one occasion, she told me that she had a female relation in London who was on the stage.".


        I don't think MJK had any part in a conspiracy, but she could have accumulated a little nest egg by sub-letting her room and failing to pay her rent. I think she realised that this was her opportunity to change her name and leave her troubles behind. There was a report that she spent a night with a man at her old residence at Pennington Road, but no date was given. She then disappeared. Curiously, it would seem, so did Lizzie Albrook.

        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 GBinOz View Post

          Hi Fishy,

          Perhaps the answer may lie in this interview given to Lloyd's weekly 11 Nov by Lizzie Albrook:

          "About the last thing she said was, "Whatever you do don't you do wrong and turn out as I have."
          She had often spoken to me in this way, and warned me against going on the streets as she had done.
          She told me, too, that she was heartily sick of the life she was leading, and she wished that she had money enough to go back to Ireland, where her people lived.
          I don't believe she would have gone out as she did if she had not been obliged to do so in order to keep herself from starvation.
          She had talked to me about her friends several times, and, on one occasion, she told me that she had a female relation in London who was on the stage.".


          I don't think MJK had any part in a conspiracy, but she could have accumulated a little nest egg by sub-letting her room and failing to pay her rent. I think she realised that this was her opportunity to change her name and leave her troubles behind. There was a report that she spent a night with a man at her old residence at Pennington Road, but no date was given. She then disappeared. Curiously, it would seem, so did Lizzie Albrook.

          Cheers, George
          as motives go it's pretty thin. I can't be the only one that thinks Kelly, finding a Kelly look-a-like cut to pieces in her bed, wouldn't have run out screaming the court down. she could have lived off that story in every pub in Whitechapel for a long time. but no, she has a little think, goes in and gets dressed in Kelly 2's clothing (happens to be the same size) after chatting it over down the pub, then leaves. Sorry, but it is as utterly ridiculous as it sounds GB. Not to mention airbrushing an ID of Kelly out of the story. There was a good thread on here somewhere discussing that the face of kelly in the photo had been retouched in processing. Kelly's hair is distinctive in that photo as his her rather squarish face. Given that B was looking at her in the flesh and her face probably wasn't as blurred as in the photo, and he knew her well, the idea that he IDd the wrong person, is also a non starter.

          As I see it the realistic options are:
          1. early TOD by blotch or Aman
          2. Aman was a regular customer, who left, Kelly murdered between 9 and 10 by the man Maxwell saw her talking to
          A late TOD does not mean the only option is 'it wasn't kelly'.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            Hi Fishy,

            Perhaps the answer may lie in this interview given to Lloyd's weekly 11 Nov by Lizzie Albrook:

            "About the last thing she said was, "Whatever you do don't you do wrong and turn out as I have."
            She had often spoken to me in this way, and warned me against going on the streets as she had done.
            She told me, too, that she was heartily sick of the life she was leading, and she wished that she had money enough to go back to Ireland, where her people lived.
            I don't believe she would have gone out as she did if she had not been obliged to do so in order to keep herself from starvation.
            She had talked to me about her friends several times, and, on one occasion, she told me that she had a female relation in London who was on the stage.".


            I don't think MJK had any part in a conspiracy, but she could have accumulated a little nest egg by sub-letting her room and failing to pay her rent. I think she realised that this was her opportunity to change her name and leave her troubles behind. There was a report that she spent a night with a man at her old residence at Pennington Road, but no date was given. She then disappeared. Curiously, it would seem, so did Lizzie Albrook.

            Cheers, George
            Hi George,

            I'd have to agree with Aethelwulf, it's a plan waiting to backfire like a cartoon blunderbuss. And again, we have the razor sharp thinking of people in this case who rapidly hatch elaborate schemes and pull them off. If she'd accumulated a nest egg, why not just go home? Start a new life legitimately? She'd done it once before in becoming Mary Kelly. I dunno, you'd need to be cold blooded not to react to finding your friend mutilated in your bed.
            Thems the Vagaries.....

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              Hi Fishy,

              Perhaps the answer may lie in this interview given to Lloyd's weekly 11 Nov by Lizzie Albrook:

              "About the last thing she said was, "Whatever you do don't you do wrong and turn out as I have."
              She had often spoken to me in this way, and warned me against going on the streets as she had done.
              She told me, too, that she was heartily sick of the life she was leading, and she wished that she had money enough to go back to Ireland, where her people lived.
              I don't believe she would have gone out as she did if she had not been obliged to do so in order to keep herself from starvation.
              She had talked to me about her friends several times, and, on one occasion, she told me that she had a female relation in London who was on the stage.".


              I don't think MJK had any part in a conspiracy, but she could have accumulated a little nest egg by sub-letting her room and failing to pay her rent. I think she realised that this was her opportunity to change her name and leave her troubles behind. There was a report that she spent a night with a man at her old residence at Pennington Road, but no date was given. She then disappeared. Curiously, it would seem, so did Lizzie Albrook.

              Cheers, George
              Hi George , i think i agree with AL and Wulf to a point on this one , i just cant see her running off using the murder as a excuse to start a fresh life when she could have done that with out any murder taking place .

              But where i tend to disagree is the hour of death suggested between 9/10 am, i cant come to grips with that sort of mutilation and time to kill when at that hour of the morning people were up and about the same as Chapman murder . And then theres Maxwell ,somethings not quite right with this murder .
              '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


              • The fact the victim's face was disfigured beyond possible recognition is consistent with the idea the victim was being passed off as MJK.

                The fact that absolutely no progress whatsoever has been achieved after all this time is very suggestive the Barnett supplied backstory for MJK is false.

                The fact the inquest was hijacked out of Baxter's hands is cause for suspicion that the inquest was a fix up as was it's super short duration.

                The fact a key witness in Hutchinson wasn't called is also ground for suspicion.

                Both Maxwell and Maurice Lewis said they saw Kelly alive after her supposed murder. Were they both lying?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

                  The fact the inquest was hijacked out of Baxter's hands is cause for suspicion that the inquest was a fix up as was it's super short duration.
                  Guess who The Shoreditch Church Vestry Board's Medical Officer was?

                  Took the position circa 1866 when Mary Ann Kelly was almost 8 years old.

                  Ever read RL Stevenson's "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde"?

                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                    Guess who The Shoreditch Church Vestry Board's Medical Officer was?

                    Took the position circa 1866 when Mary Ann Kelly was almost 8 years old.

                    Ever read RL Stevenson's "Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde"?
                    Some wild impulse tells me to plump for "Henry Gawen Sutton".

                    I haven't read "Jekyll and Hyde" yet unfortunately.

                    My suspect too was on his local vestry board, though not as a Medical Officer. I'm sure he was not medically qualified to do so, though he
                    did descend from a long line of surgeons. If memory serves me correctly, he also served as a verger for his local church, which is somewhat ironic. The "You would say anything but your prayers" quote always reminds me of this fact.

                    I'm curious to know why you ask about the RLS book?
                    Last edited by mpriestnall; 10-01-2022, 09:22 PM.

                    Comment


                    • The young girl trampled by Mr Hyde (Sutton).

                      The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde, by Robert Louis Stevenson
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • Sir William Withey Gull, 1st Baronet | English physician | Britannica

                        Xanthelasma - Wikipedia
                        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post
                          The fact the victim's face was disfigured beyond possible recognition is consistent with the idea the victim was being passed off as MJK.

                          The fact that absolutely no progress whatsoever has been achieved after all this time is very suggestive the Barnett supplied backstory for MJK is false.

                          The fact the inquest was hijacked out of Baxter's hands is cause for suspicion that the inquest was a fix up as was it's super short duration.

                          The fact a key witness in Hutchinson wasn't called is also ground for suspicion.

                          Both Maxwell and Maurice Lewis said they saw Kelly alive after her supposed murder. Were they both lying?
                          Hi mpriestnall

                          There is an unsolvable paradox for those who wish to rely on the evidence of Maxwell and Lewis (Maurice) to demonstrate that MJK was alive past the time the person in Miller's Court was murdered and who then speculate, based on that evidence that therefore the woman known as MJK was not killed that night and instead she used the murder to cover her disappearance into a new life.

                          If Maxwell and Lewis are correct in their sightings then MJK was alive way past the time of death of the body found in Miller's Court as estimated by the doctors.

                          If MJK was alive way past the time of death of the body found in Miller's Court and was using that murder to secretly run off into the sun set, then is she not likely to be discrete (she wants people to think she is dead) rather than frequenting public places having chats with random men.

                          This paradox seems to discredit the idea - if she doing what the witnesses say then she was not hiding behind a dead body. The only conclusion that therefore can be drawn if the witnesses are to be believed, is that she was murdered later than traditionally thought.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                            Hi mpriestnall

                            There is an unsolvable paradox for those who wish to rely on the evidence of Maxwell and Lewis (Maurice) to demonstrate that MJK was alive past the time the person in Miller's Court was murdered and who then speculate, based on that evidence that therefore the woman known as MJK was not killed that night and instead she used the murder to cover her disappearance into a new life.

                            If Maxwell and Lewis are correct in their sightings then MJK was alive way past the time of death of the body found in Miller's Court as estimated by the doctors.

                            If MJK was alive way past the time of death of the body found in Miller's Court and was using that murder to secretly run off into the sun set, then is she not likely to be discrete (she wants people to think she is dead) rather than frequenting public places having chats with random men.

                            This paradox seems to discredit the idea - if she doing what the witnesses say then she was not hiding behind a dead body. The only conclusion that therefore can be drawn if the witnesses are to be believed, is that she was murdered later than traditionally thought.
                            now now Etenguy, don't going throwing common sense around like that.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                              Hi mpriestnall

                              There is an unsolvable paradox for those who wish to rely on the evidence of Maxwell and Lewis (Maurice) to demonstrate that MJK was alive past the time the person in Miller's Court was murdered and who then speculate, based on that evidence that therefore the woman known as MJK was not killed that night and instead she used the murder to cover her disappearance into a new life.

                              If Maxwell and Lewis are correct in their sightings then MJK was alive way past the time of death of the body found in Miller's Court as estimated by the doctors.

                              If MJK was alive way past the time of death of the body found in Miller's Court and was using that murder to secretly run off into the sun set, then is she not likely to be discrete (she wants people to think she is dead) rather than frequenting public places having chats with random men.

                              This paradox seems to discredit the idea - if she doing what the witnesses say then she was not hiding behind a dead body. The only conclusion that therefore can be drawn if the witnesses are to be believed, is that she was murdered later than traditionally thought.
                              It's my belief that JTR (blotchy) and Astrakhan worked together to relocate MJK. It was their idea, not Kelly's.

                              There are indications that Kelly was not working as an active prostitute, perhaps because she was incapacitated in some way.
                              She seems to me to be kind stuck where she was and couldn't escape her situation, even if she wanted to.

                              After she took Astrakhan back to 13 Millers Court., Astrakhan could have placed her in a private cabin at the Victorian Home (believe these are mentioned in a newspaper somewhere), allowing JTR to kill the substitute at number 13.

                              Was the locked/table jammed door to try to stop Kelly re-entering no. 13, living with the broken window, because he
                              could do anything about that?

                              Anyhow, JTR and Astrakhan would not have wanted to be seen with MJK in the daylight accompanying Kelly out of the immediate area as there was a murdered women at no. 13, with which they would not have wanted to be associated with!

                              Therefore Kelly, would have to be left behind. I believe the "market porter" in the Britannia may have been JTR. His market porter clothing would cover his blood-covered clothes beneath. Any splashes of blood on the market porter clothing would be seen as a result of his work (if a meat market porter). I believe the market porter description matches other descriptions of Jack (short, stout if I remember correctly.)

                              I assume at that this point Kelly, is not aware that MarketPorterMan has murdered the substitute as she spent the night elsewhere (private cabin?) as arranged by Astrakhan Man.

                              In the pub, MarkertPorterMan is giving money/instructions to get Kelly to remove herself from the scene.

                              I believe this scenario solves the issues you have raised, is plausible and does not exceed the bounds of Wulf's common sense?

                              Open-minded comments welcome.
                              Last edited by mpriestnall; 10-02-2022, 07:59 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

                                It's my belief that JTR (blotchy) and Astrakhan worked together to relocate MJK. It was their idea, not Kelly's.

                                There are indications that Kelly was not working as an active prostitute, perhaps because she was incapacitated in some way.
                                She seems to me to be kind stuck where she was and couldn't escape her situation, even if she wanted to.

                                After she took Astrakhan back to 13 Millers Court., Astrakhan could have placed her in a private cabin at the Victorian Home (believe these are mentioned in a newspaper somewhere), allowing JTR to kill the substitute at number 13.

                                Was the locked/table jammed door to try to stop Kelly re-entering no. 13, living with the broken window, because he
                                could do anything about that?

                                Anyhow, JTR and Astrakhan would not have wanted to be seen with MJK in the daylight accompanying Kelly out of the immediate area as there was a murdered women at no. 13, with which they would not have wanted to be associated with!

                                Therefore Kelly, would have to be left behind. I believe the "market porter" in the Britannia may have been JTR. His market porter clothing would cover his blood-covered clothes beneath. Any splashes of blood on the market porter clothing would be seen as a result of his work (if a meat market porter). I believe the market porter description matches other descriptions of Jack (short, stout if I remember correctly.)

                                I assume at that this point Kelly, is not aware that MarketPorterMan has murdered the substitute as she spent the night elsewhere (private cabin?) as arranged by Astrakhan Man.

                                In the pub, MarkertPorterMan is giving money/instructions to get Kelly to remove herself from the scene.

                                I believe this scenario solves the issues you have raised, is plausible and does not exceed the bounds of Wulf's common sense?

                                Open-minded comments welcome.
                                on the contrary, I too am a fan of crime fiction. I like the classics though. Some of my favourites are The ABC Murders, Why Didn't they ask Evans, and Endless Night by Agatha C. Just read The Hog's Back Mystery by Freeman Wills Crofts, which is very good, as is The Poisoned Chocolates Case by Anthony Berkeley. I also like the Dalgleish and Wycliffe series.

                                You got any recommendations - you seem to be something of a scholar of the genre?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X