Can't get past Maxwell

[Varqm]

Daily News, 13 Nov.



Thats right, and as Lewis was walking some distance behind this couple, then they were "further up the street" from Lewis.



Why?, no-one knew the female (of the couple) was Kelly, Lewis didn't know Kelly.



Exactly, so you demonstrated your own assumption is wrong.



Where were they asked?

The focus was Millers Court,if the couple was relevant to that it would have been pursued,it was not.The couple was further up the street.
Lewis said there was no one in the court,implying also there was no commotion,the couple did not go to the court.
Aside from the silence in Millers Court,the important fact was the man across the court looking up the court.And the alleged Bethnal Green guy with a woman near Ringers.No one testified they were with a man,not Julia,Prater,Cox.The residents were sequestered on the 9th.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

I cannot agree with you. There is nothing more removed from a routine morning than an horrific murder of a neighbour. I cannot see how she could possibly have confused the day - particularly with the shop visit as well...

Hi, yes I understand your point, I just disagree. As shocking as Kelly's murder was, Maxwell's belief in what she saw & when she saw it, is not going to change.
So long as Maxwell was under the impression she had seen Kelly on the morning she was murdered, the two incidents will be forever bound together in her mind.
Who could have corrected her? - perhaps her husband, he knew she carried the plates that morning, as she always did. He knew she brought milk for his breakfast on the Friday, but he may not have known if his wife had seen Kelly on Thursday, and said that Kelly was apparently sick.

I think much will depend on what Maxwell connected the sighting with, in her mind.

[Wickerman]

In the written statement of the inquest Maxwell said why don't you go to Ringers and Kelly said she was already there. So the police could have checked Ringers if a woman resembling MJK's profile drunk there.

They did, I posted the result of that inquiry a few days ago. The landlady claimed Friday was a slow morning, if Kelly had been in she would remember her.
The conclusion being, Maxwell was wrong.

Maxwell also said she Kelly obtained her living as an unfortunate after Joe left.But she had not seen her for 3 week,so through gossip she learned this?
Maxwell is fishy.

It could be through gossip, who knows?

[Wickerman]

Where did it say Lewis saw the couple pass up the court....

Daily News, 13 Nov.

Another version says further up the street.

Thats right, and as Lewis was walking some distance behind this couple, then they were "further up the street" from Lewis.

If Lewis saw the couple pass up the court then she would have been a witness to MJK's possible killer.

Why?, no-one knew the female (of the couple) was Kelly, Lewis didn't know Kelly.

This is not the case,the coroner did not pursue this.

Exactly, so you demonstrated your own assumption is wrong.

No other Millers court resident say they had company heading to their room.

Where were they asked?

[etenguy]

Hi George.



What part of the previous day was it; evening, afternoon or morning? Trimming his boot wasn't a ritual he did at the same time every day, was it?



Cadoche was sick on this day wasn't he? this is the reason for his frequent visits to the outhouse, if I recall. It wasn't something he did every morning, was it?



I seem to recall Christer wrote that opinion piece before it was realized Sarah Lewis had seen the couple pass up the court just before she noticed him. Which undermines any attempt to play 'the wrong day' argument with Hutchinson.



Agreed, she wasn't unreliable - she had definitely seen what she claimed to have seen, this is why she was unshakable.
It's just that she never realized she saw Kelly on the previous morning. If the thought had just once come across her mind, she might have hesitated under questioning, but she apparently didn't.

We often accede to the fact that the simplest answer is often the most likely.

Hi Wickerman

I cannot agree with you. There is nothing more removed from a routine morning than an horrific murder of a neighbour. I cannot see how she could possibly have confused the day - particularly with the shop visit as well.

You were shaken with a memory lapse that had you confuse two mornings, but do you think you would have had that lapse if the computer your wife was using shorted and caught fire. I think not.

[Varqm]

The most detailed account outside the inquest I find is that by the Central News, published in the Illustrated Police News, of 17 Nov. 1888.

..."However, it is the latest statement and it is given on the authority of the Central News:--"Mrs. Maxwell, the wife of the deputy of a lodging-house in Dorset-street, situated just opposite the court where Mary Kelly lived, said to a Central News reporter: 'I assist my husband in his duties, but we live next door, at No. 26 Dorset-street. We had to stay up all night, and yesterday morning, as I was going home, carrying my lantern and other things with me, I saw the woman Kelly standing at the entrance of the court. It was then about half-past eight, and as it was unusual for her to be seen about at that hour I said to her, "Hallo, what are you doing up so early?" She said, "Oh, I'm very bad this morning. I have had the horrors. I have been drinking so much lately." I said to her, "Why don't you go and have half a pint of beer? It will put you right." She replied, "I have just had one, but I am so bad I couldn't keep it down." I didn't know then that she had separated from the man she had been living with, and I thought he had been "paying" her. I then went out in the direction of Bishopsgate to do some errands, and on my return I saw Kelly standing outside the public-house talking to a man. That was the last I saw of her. Who he was I don't know. He was a short, stout man, of about fifty years of age. I did not notice what he had on, but I saw that he wore a kind of plaid coat. I then went indoors to go to bed, as I had been "on duty" all night. Mary Jane (I only know her by that name) was a pleasant little woman, rather stout, fair complexion, and rather pale."

There's just a couple of small details in there that have not been chewed over yet.
- She carried a lantern for some reason,and she had slept between seeing 'Kelly' and giving her statement.

In the written statement of the inquest Maxwell said why don't you go to Ringers and Kelly said she was already there. So the police could have checked Ringers if a woman resembling MJK's profile drunk there.
Maxwell also said she Kelly obtained her living as an unfortunate after Joe left.But she had not seen her for 3 week,so through gossip she learned this?
Maxwell is fishy.

[Varqm]

Hi George.



What part of the previous day was it; evening, afternoon or morning? Trimming his boot wasn't a ritual he did at the same time every day, was it?



Cadoche was sick on this day wasn't he? this is the reason for his frequent visits to the outhouse, if I recall. It wasn't something he did every morning, was it?



I seem to recall Christer wrote that opinion piece before it was realized Sarah Lewis had seen the couple pass up the court just before she noticed him. Which undermines any attempt to play 'the wrong day' argument with Hutchinson.



Agreed, she wasn't unreliable - she had definitely seen what she claimed to have seen, this is why she was unshakable.
It's just that she never realized she saw Kelly on the previous morning. If the thought had just once come across her mind, she might have hesitated under questioning, but she apparently didn't.

We often accede to the fact that the simplest answer is often the most likely.

Where did it say Lewis saw the couple pass up the court.Another version says further up the street.If Lewis saw the couple pass up the court then she would have been a witness to MJK's possible killer.This is not the case,the coroner did not pursue this. No other Millers court resident say they had company heading to their room.

[Wickerman]

Hi George.

Hi Jon,

The problem with that argument is that it can be applied to dismiss any witness. Richardson said he cut leather off his boot the day before the murder. Did he confuse the day he sat on the step?...

What part of the previous day was it; evening, afternoon or morning? Trimming his boot wasn't a ritual he did at the same time every day, was it?

Cadosch testified he didn't look over the fence because it was not unusual to hear noises coming from No 29. Did he confuse the day?

Cadoche was sick on this day wasn't he? this is the reason for his frequent visits to the outhouse, if I recall. It wasn't something he did every morning, was it?

Christer had a persuasive dissertation in the Examiner where he proposed that Hutchinson may have confused the day.

I seem to recall Christer wrote that opinion piece before it was realized Sarah Lewis had seen the couple pass up the court just before she noticed him. Which undermines any attempt to play 'the wrong day' argument with Hutchinson.

Maxwell's testimony was solid, unwavering and, according to Abberline, unshakeable. It contained none of the usual clues that would point to her being an unreliable witness.

Best regards, George

Agreed, she wasn't unreliable - she had definitely seen what she claimed to have seen, this is why she was unshakable.
It's just that she never realized she saw Kelly on the previous morning. If the thought had just once come across her mind, she might have hesitated under questioning, but she apparently didn't.

We often accede to the fact that the simplest answer is often the most likely.

[GBinOz]

In this respect, she appears to have 'confused the day', as her seeing Kelly was associated more with the ritual part of her duties than the special trip to the shop for milk?

Hi Jon,

The problem with that argument is that it can be applied to dismiss any witness. Richardson said he cut leather off his boot the day before the murder. Did he confuse the day he sat on the step? Cadosch testified he didn't look over the fence because it was not unusual to hear noises coming from No 29. Did he confuse the day? Christer had a persuasive dissertation in the Examiner where he proposed that Hutchinson may have confused the day.

Maxwell's testimony was solid, unwavering and, according to Abberline, unshakeable. It contained none of the usual clues that would point to her being an unreliable witness.

Best regards, George

[Abby Normal]

Hey Abby, for the longest time I have argued against this idea that Maxwell could have confused the day, it's preposterous, she saw Kelly the same day as she was interviewed. Yet, to my dismay the very same type of situation unfolded this morning.

Some two or three hours after I got up this morning (about 11:00am) my wife asked how my night had been, I told her just the usual, but because I woke up with a dry throat about 5:45, I got myself a drink of water, and decided to have a shower. I came down about 6:15.
My wife looked at me, and said that she was down here when I came down, about 8:10.
I told her she couldn't have been, she was still upstairs when I came down after my shower.
No, she said, she was on the computer when I came down.

I spent a while thinking about this because I did remember seeing her on the computer, but I had got up about 5:45, so what happened?

Slowly, it came back to me after thinking about it. She was right, I had got up just before 8:00 am, and had a shower, and came down about 8:15, she was on the computer.
It was yesterday when I woke up about 5:45, had a shower & came down - not this morning, but I wouldn't have realized it if she hadn't pressed the point.

Later, it occurred to me that is very similar to this Maxwell thing we've been talking about. I had confused what I did yesterday morning with this morning.
It is possible after all, it just happened to me, and I have always maintained it isn't likely, that it's ridiculous.

I am quite a bit older than Maxwell was, maybe that has something to do with it, but, needless to say I am shocked that I was so convinced I got up at 5:45 this morning, if it had not been for my wife then I'd have thought this all day long.
I had no recollection of getting up about 8:00 am, and that was only about three hours before when we began talking about it.

So,... if your still with me, I suspect Maxwell had this morning ritual, every morning, of bringing the plates back from the lodging-house, she did it every morning. More importantly, she must have done it Thursday morning, the morning she saw Kelly.
On Friday morning she went through the same ritual, but also went for milk to a shop on Bishopsgate (this was verified), and returned.
In this respect, she appears to have 'confused the day', as her seeing Kelly was associated more with the ritual part of her duties than the special trip to the shop for milk?

Again, sorry for the small self-indulgement, but I am still shocked that I could be so mistaken over something that happened merely a few hours previous.

hey wick
great story. thanks for posting. yes memory is a fragile thing.
of course its possible maxwell was correct, but in all probably IMHO mary was lying dead in bed when maxwell thought she was talking with her. except for the usual wacky theories, this has been a fascinating thread.

[GBinOz]

Times 12th Nov.

"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."

[Varqm]

My guess is the police tried to verify if MJK ever owned a velvet body and a maroon shawl and she did not.

[Wickerman]

From John's post of the Central News interview (also carried by several papers on the 10th), it's clear that both Maxwells worked overnight at the lodging house, so morning would be her evening. And dinner is breakfast, and vice versa. I worked nights in and off for 20 years and it all gets a bit confusing. I rarely knew what day it was. That's why I've always been happy to accept that Maxwell had the wrong day.

Having said that, if the article is correct in that Maxwell actually lived at no.26, it's hard to imagine she got very much sleep before being woken by the police to give a statement...

It appears only the court recorder wrote "evening", all the press versions I found made no mention of "evening".
The press also make it clear Maxwell saw Kelly "opposite", as she left Crossingham's to take some of the lodgers own plates out of the lodging-house, possibly for safe keeping?
But, anyway, Kelly was standing opposite, at Millers Court. The connection of Maxwell with 26 Dorset St. seems to be a confusion by the reporter.

[Wickerman]

She says morning elsewhere and doesn’t mention dinner.

I’m more intrigued by the plates. Casebook Wiki mentions them.

She saw Mary at the corner of Miller's Court between 8.00am and 8.30am on the morning of 9th November 1888, saying she was sure of the time as she was taking some plates her husband had borrowed back to the house opposite.

.... I thought we'd established the Maxwell's lived "next door" to Crossingham's Lodging-house, not "next door" to McCarthy's shop?

[GBinOz]

The Echo 10 Nov 1888:

Many persons who have been interviewed, state that the unfortunate woman never left her house at Dorset-street after she had entered it on Thursday night, while, on the other hand, numerous persons, who declare that they were companions of the deceased and know her well, state that she came out of her house at eight o'clock on Friday morning for provisions, and furthermore, that they were drinking with her in the Britannia, a local tavern, at ten o'clock on the same morning as her mutilated body was found at eleven.

The circumstances connected with the tragedy are more mysterious than ever. Some persons have reiterated the statement that the unfortunate woman was seen between eight and nine o'clock yesterday morning. One of her companions, more positive than the rest saw Mary Jane Kelly at nine o'clock, and the officers of justice are this afternoon inquiring into the truth or otherwise of the woman's assertion. From the nature of the mutilations and the loss of blood the doctors can only form a very vague idea as to the time when death actually occurred. If, as assured, the crime actually took place in daylight time, the miscreant could only have completed his work - which, it is calculated, could scarcely have been done in less time than an hour - a few minutes before the ghastly discovery was made.