Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can't get past Maxwell

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

  • Hi The letter penned from Dorset street from the very address that Mrs Maxwell s husband was the lodging house keeper , may hold the key to the mystery, Coincidences exist , but for the Norfolk police to receive a letter penned from the very address That Henry Maxwell worked, which happened to be exactly opposite the murder scene a week later, rings suspicious to me, and Mrs Maxwell may have lied to give someone from that address an alibi, by suggesting a morning crime. , Regards Richard,

    Comment


    • Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
      Hi The letter penned from Dorset street from the very address that Mrs Maxwell s husband was the lodging house keeper , may hold the key to the mystery, Coincidences exist , but for the Norfolk police to receive a letter penned from the very address That Henry Maxwell worked, which happened to be exactly opposite the murder scene a week later, rings suspicious to me, and Mrs Maxwell may have lied to give someone from that address an alibi, by suggesting a morning crime. , Regards Richard,
      Hi Richard, yes it's intriguing but there's so little to go on with this.

      My default position with witnesses is that they are telling the truth unless there is good reason to suppose otherwise.

      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.
        It's also consistent with the fact the murders were escalating in violence, as Eddowes suffered facial mutilations.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
          Hi The letter penned from Dorset street from the very address that Mrs Maxwell s husband was the lodging house keeper , may hold the key to the mystery, Coincidences exist , but for the Norfolk police to receive a letter penned from the very address That Henry Maxwell worked, which happened to be exactly opposite the murder scene a week later, rings suspicious to me, and Mrs Maxwell may have lied to give someone from that address an alibi, by suggesting a morning crime. , Regards Richard,
          I don’t think he was. He was the lodging house deputy of the premises next door, no. 15 - 20.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post
            My default position with witnesses is that they are telling the truth unless there is good reason to suppose otherwise.
            Hi mpriestnall

            I am not so na´ve as to ignore the possibility a witness is lying for their own reasons, but like you, I start from the position that witnesses are telling the truth as they understand it, unless there is good reason to suppose otherwise.

            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.
            I do not think this solves the problem but does introduce new problems.

            a) why do these people want to remove Kelly from the area?
            b) assuming they keep this a secret from Kelly, why does she go along with the plan both before she knows there is a plan and after she discovers the murder.
            c) why would the men behind the scheme not get Kelly out of the area before the murder to avoid her being seen by anyone - same paradox it just applies to the conspirators now.

            And a few other questions. There would be much more straight-forward ways to get Kelly out of the way if that is what they wanted - this I think would be an extreme and unnecessary approach.



            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
              Lizzie Albrook has nothing to do with the case.It was Harvey who saw Barnett on Thurs evening.MJK was one day of inquest,the witnesses were all there.
              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


              • 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?
                Spitalfields was under Macdonald.MJK and Chapman was both under him.Thd difference was Chapman was killed outside,like in a street,the body can't be left there,so the police sent the body to Old Montague mortuary which then fell under Baxter.

                MJK was one day of inquest,too late for Hutch.Maybe it was intentional on Hutch's part,he did not have to face the court and get fined for lying.

                Lewis said he had known MJK for 5 Years,She came to London 4 yrs previously and to Spitalfields barely 2 years.
                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


                • Inquest: Mary Jane KellyMonday, November 12, 1888
                  (The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, November 13, 1888)
                  Yesterday [12 Nov], at the Shoreditch Town Hall, Dr. Macdonald, M.P., the coroner for the North- Eastern District of Middlesex, opened his inquiry relative to the death of Marie Jeanette Kelly, the woman whose body was discovered on Friday morning, terribly mutilated, in a room on the ground floor of 26, Dorset-street, entrance to which was by a side door in Miller's-court.
                  Superintendent T. Arnold, H Division; Inspector Abberline, of the Criminal Investigation Department, and Inspector Nairn represented the police. The deputy coroner, Mr. Hodgkinson, was present during the proceedings.
                  The jury having answered to their names, one of them said: I do not see why we should have the inquest thrown upon our shoulders, when the murder did not happen in our district, but in Whitechapel.
                  The Coroner's Officer (Mr. Hammond): It did not happen in Whitechapel.
                  The Coroner (to the juror, severely): Do you think that we do not know what we are doing here, and that we do not know our own district? The jury are summoned in the ordinary way, and they have no business to object. If they persist in their objection I shall know how to deal with them. Does any juror persist in objecting ?
                  The Juror: We are summoned for the Shoreditch district. This affair happened in Spitalfields. The Coroner: It happened within my district.
                  Another Juryman: This is not my district. I come from Whitechapel, and Mr. Baxter is my coroner.
                  The Coroner: I am not going to discuss the subject with jurymen at all. If any juryman says he distinctly objects, let him say so. (After a pause): I may tell the jurymen that jurisdiction lies where the body lies, not where it was found, if there was doubt as to the district where the body was found.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                    Spitalfields was under Macdonald.MJK and Chapman was both under him.Thd difference was Chapman was killed outside,like in a street,the body can't be left there,so the police sent the body to Old Montague mortuary which then fell under Baxter.

                    MJK was one day of inquest,too late for Hutch.Maybe it was intentional on Hutch's part,he did not have to face the court and get fined for lying.

                    Lewis said he had known MJK for 5 Years,She came to London 4 yrs previously and to Spitalfields barely 2 years.
                    Thanks Varqm.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                      Inquest: Mary Jane KellyMonday, November 12, 1888
                      (The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, November 13, 1888)
                      Yesterday [12 Nov], at the Shoreditch Town Hall, Dr. Macdonald, M.P., the coroner for the North- Eastern District of Middlesex, opened his inquiry relative to the death of Marie Jeanette Kelly, the woman whose body was discovered on Friday morning, terribly mutilated, in a room on the ground floor of 26, Dorset-street, entrance to which was by a side door in Miller's-court.
                      Superintendent T. Arnold, H Division; Inspector Abberline, of the Criminal Investigation Department, and Inspector Nairn represented the police. The deputy coroner, Mr. Hodgkinson, was present during the proceedings.
                      The jury having answered to their names, one of them said: I do not see why we should have the inquest thrown upon our shoulders, when the murder did not happen in our district, but in Whitechapel.
                      The Coroner's Officer (Mr. Hammond): It did not happen in Whitechapel.
                      The Coroner (to the juror, severely): Do you think that we do not know what we are doing here, and that we do not know our own district? The jury are summoned in the ordinary way, and they have no business to object. If they persist in their objection I shall know how to deal with them. Does any juror persist in objecting ?
                      The Juror: We are summoned for the Shoreditch district. This affair happened in Spitalfields. The Coroner: It happened within my district.
                      Another Juryman: This is not my district. I come from Whitechapel, and Mr. Baxter is my coroner.
                      The Coroner: I am not going to discuss the subject with jurymen at all. If any juryman says he distinctly objects, let him say so. (After a pause): I may tell the jurymen that jurisdiction lies where the body lies, not where it was found, if there was doubt as to the district where the body was found.
                      Yeah it was where the body lied.In Chapman's case it seemed like Macdonald was not informed of Chapman's death,he would then order the police to put it in a mortuary under his jurisdiction.It was too early probably,Chapman's body was received at 7 am in the Old Montague mortuary.The police had to move the body.
                      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


                      • Hi
                        Have to follow up on a previous post who suggests Henry Maxwell was the deputy at Number 15 -20 Dorset Street, With respect his infirmary records a few months after clearly show he was admitted from Number 14 , Dorset street , so clearly resided there , regardless of his employment address.
                        Regards Richard,
                        Last edited by richardnunweek; 10-03-2022, 11:01 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
                          Hi
                          Have to follow up on a previous post who suggests Henry Maxwell was the deputy at Number 15 -20 Dorset Street, With respect his infirmary records a few months after clearly show he was admitted from Number 14 , Dorset street , so clearly resided there , regardless of his employment address.
                          Regards Richard,
                          That’s correct. He lived at 14 and worked next door. He would have been an employee and a tenant of William Crossingham.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                            Lizzie Albrook has nothing to do with the case.It was Harvey who saw Barnett on Thurs evening. MJK was one day of inquest,the witnesses were all there.
                            Hi Varqm

                            Lizzie Allbrook certainly tells us she was there and did not leave until much later than Harvey. Also, Maurice Lewis was not called. Hutchinson never gave evidence either. However, the coroner seemed to think there was sufficient evidence for the inquest task and the jury agreed with him, so not disagreeing with your substantive point.

                            The Foreman, having consulted with his colleagues, considered that the jury had had quite sufficient evidence before them upon which to give a verdict.
                            The Coroner: What is the verdict:
                            The Foreman: Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown.
                            Last edited by etenguy; 10-03-2022, 02:50 PM.

                            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?
                              Was it disfigured beyond all recognition? I some times wonders as Aethelwulf mentioned earlier if the surviving picture we have has been defaced/altered?
                              Best wishes,

                              Tristan

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                                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.
                                Then we have the same situation as we had with the Richardosn thread, and that is are the witnesses to be believed ?

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X