Can't get past Maxwell

[Abby Normal]

That's correct. In one instance, a man named John Cleary went to the New York Herald news office and told them he'd heard about a mutilated murder victim at Backchurch Lane. The reporters hurried to the scene but couldn't find any such thing, and Cleary didn't follow them. This was two days before the discovery of the mutilated torso at Pinchin Street, which is right next to Backchurch Lane.

There's a couple more instances of the torso murders being predicted before they were found but I'd have to dig them up.

yes Jerry Dunlop is the main researcher par excellence for this and puts forth an intriguing idea that the torsos (and I beleive possibly the ripper crimes) were probably the work of two men, one named wildbore, who was a worker in the vaults at NSY and lived right along a route where many of the torso parts where dumped.

[etenguy]

1. Personally if Abberline believed Maxwell, I think we should

Abberline believed her to be reliable and not an attention seeker - I think we can do the same but still question whether she made a mistake - personally I believe it more likely Maxwell was correct than she got the wrong day or the wrong person.

2. Could time of death be wrong? Yes: given the cold room and blood loss TOD based on core temperature would have been increasingly inaccurate (even for the presumpotion of accuracy of the day); further rigor mortis kick in and staging would also be questionable given muscle denudement.

Yes, the doctor's estimate might be wrong - but that doesn't mean it was.

3. Someone other than Kelly murdered. Yes, Barnett may not have lied if shown a gory mess of the right approximate size in the place he expected to see his MJK.

It is possible, but in my view it was more likely the woman known as MJK was the victim.

I’d still add the fourth possibility that Maxwell knew somebody else as Mary Kelly of Dorset Street. Although this assumes she never saw the person again, as if we take point one as Maxwell was honest and point two she was right in time wouldn’t she have adjusted or recanted her statement (assuming that piece hasn’t since been lost).
Thank you for an interesting post

Another reason to suppose Maxwell did not confuse MJK with another person.

[Harry D]

hi
this being the London torso killer of which books are written and discussed about yes !
thx.
i know little of only from threads here and there.

That's correct. In one instance, a man named John Cleary went to the New York Herald news office and told them he'd heard about a mutilated murder victim at Backchurch Lane. The reporters hurried to the scene but couldn't find any such thing, and Cleary didn't follow them. This was two days before the discovery of the mutilated torso at Pinchin Street, which is right next to Backchurch Lane.

There's a couple more instances of the torso murders being predicted before they were found but I'd have to dig them up.

[milchmanuk]

Yes, not to mention the Torso discovery sites being predicted three times before they happened.

hi
this being the London torso killer of which books are written and discussed about yes !
thx.
i know little of only from threads here and there.

[Harry D]

Thanks Harry and Diddles. very strange
The number of sub mysteries in this case (and the torso cas) is astonishing.

Yes, not to mention the Torso discovery sites being predicted three times before they happened.

[Aethelwulf]

If for the sake of discussion we accept that Maxwell was talking to MJK, her vomiting would have emptied her stomach, so either, after not being able to keep a beer down, she then went and a meal of fish and chips, started soliciting and picked up Jack etc. The autopsy said she had a partially digested meal of fish and chips in her stomach. How can this be?

Cheers, George

I'm unconvinced the meal and vomit is as significant as you are making out. I've been sick enough times from general and alcohol to know that it can take a few goes to get down to an empty stomach. She could have eaten the meal and just brought part of it up.

No plausible or sensible reasoning has been offered to support the your post 'it wasn't kelly IMO'

The ripper hoax letter did come from the lodging house address but it was was a hoax penned by a bored young girl named Smith, living in the lodging house, but who was originally from Yarmouth.

Cheers, George

is this fact? was it proven/smith sentenced?

[Abby Normal]

But isn't that how she arrived at Millers Court, with Barnett?



Right, it doesn't mean it is the same, but it does mean it could be. Whereas if we stay with the conventional interpretation, it couldn't be. Thats the difference.



I think the depth of research for Mary Kelly over the decades has demonstrated that it was not Mary Kelly who was killed.
Meaning, the name was false.

agree wick. her name she was known by but not her real name, but the murdered women was most def the woman known as mary kelly who lived in millers court.

[Abby Normal]

Yet, if this was the case, wouldn't she have realized her mistake at the inquest on the 12th?
All six female witnesses were sat together in one room waiting to give their evidence.
So Prater and Maxwell were sat together for a while.

I think it was someone else she mistook for Kelly, not Prater.

thanks wick, that pretty much takes care of that idea

[GBinOz]

Hi eten
agree hard to beleive Maxwell confused the day as it was that very morning and she tied it into other activity she was doing that morning. and hard to beleive she got the wrong mary (which I beleived to be the case prior) when she describes what Mary was wearing accurately. shes at the inquest and does not back down.

and yet all other evidence points to a night time murder. Marys high activity meeting with men/suspects, lots of witnesses who saw and heard her up and about, the cries of murder, the large hot fire with burnt clothes. and on the other side-the lack of/tight times for a morning daylight murder, the lack of witnesses who saw her up and about, her being ill etc.

Its a conundrum for sure.

If anything is fishy with maxwell I again come back to a question I posed earlier-did not a ripper hoax letter come from Maxwells address?

Hi Abby,

An additional consideration is that Maxwell said she also knew Joe Barnett, and that they were a couple, but didn't know they had separated.
"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've 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."

If for the sake of discussion we accept that Maxwell was talking to MJK, her vomiting would have emptied her stomach, so either, after not being able to keep a beer down, she then went and a meal of fish and chips, started soliciting and picked up Jack etc. The autopsy said she had a partially digested meal of fish and chips in her stomach. How can this be? She either had nothing in her stomach after vomiting, or a fresh meal of fish and chips. The only solution is that the body containing the stomach that was autopsied was not from the woman to whom Maxwell spoke. I also believe the timing is too short for it to have been her.

All the evidence for a night time murder can still stand, just with a different woman.

The ripper hoax letter did come from the lodging house address but it was was a hoax penned by a bored young girl named Smith, living in the lodging house, but who was originally from Yarmouth.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

But then we have to assume that she made her planned getaway with no money, no suitcase and no clothes or somehow found a way around those problems. It also requires that Barnett could not correctly identify the woman with whom he shared a bed.

But isn't that how she arrived at Millers Court, with Barnett?

Mary Kelly is a common name so it is not surprising that it turns up in the census but that doesn't mean it is the same Mary Kelly we are interested in. Also, if she had fled Whitechapel to start a new life why give her correct name in the census?

Right, it doesn't mean it is the same, but it does mean it could be. Whereas if we stay with the conventional interpretation, it couldn't be. Thats the difference.

Could it have been another woman's body in the room? Absolutely, but just how probable is it is the question. I have to go with Occam's Razor on this one. It was Kelly in that room.

I think the depth of research for Mary Kelly over the decades has demonstrated that it was not Mary Kelly who was killed.
Meaning, the name was false.

[Wickerman]

yes some have posited in the past that maxwell thought Prater was Kelly

Yet, if this was the case, wouldn't she have realized her mistake at the inquest on the 12th?
All six female witnesses were sat together in one room waiting to give their evidence.
So Prater and Maxwell were sat together for a while.

I think it was someone else she mistook for Kelly, not Prater.

[kjab3112]

Hi Abby

That's a new phrase for me, so something good from this thread.

I think most people posting on this thread are content that Maxwell did not mistake the time and date and did not mistake the person she spoke to. But we are now left with three options between us.

i Maxwell lied
ii Kelly was murdered close to 9.00am (my preferred option)
iii It was someone other than Kelly who was murdered.

I know you are suspicious of Hutchinson, but a later time of death would make him a lesser figure in this crime.

1. Personally if Abberline believed Maxwell, I think we should
2. Could time of death be wrong? Yes: given the cold room and blood loss TOD based on core temperature would have been increasingly inaccurate (even for the presumpotion of accuracy of the day); further rigor mortis kick in and staging would also be questionable given muscle denudement.
3. Someone other than Kelly murdered. Yes, Barnett may not have lied if shown a gory mess of the right approximate size in the place he expected to see his MJK.

I’d still add the fourth possibility that Maxwell knew somebody else as Mary Kelly of Dorset Street. Although this assumes she never saw the person again, as if we take point one as Maxwell was honest and point two she was right in time wouldn’t she have adjusted or recanted her statement (assuming that piece hasn’t since been lost).


Thank you for an interesting post

[Abby Normal]

Her husband Henry was deputy at the lodging house next door,owned by William Crossingham of Romford.
Same place Hutchinson allegedly stood in front of while surveilling Millers Court.

and apparently after walking back from Romford. hmmmm

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

That's a new phrase for me, so something good from this thread.

I think most people posting on this thread are content that Maxwell did not mistake the time and date and did not mistake the person she spoke to. But we are now left with three options between us.

i Maxwell lied
ii Kelly was murdered close to 9.00am (my preferred option)
iii It was someone other than Kelly who was murdered.

I know you are suspicious of Hutchinson, but a later time of death would make him a lesser figure in this crime.

hi eten
i still cant rule out that she was mistaken either by day or person. of these two i still think the latter is more probable.
that being said i cant dismiss her like i used to.

[DJA]

Are we sure which lodging house it was?

Crossingham had been born in Romford, and returned there around 1899, but there’s no evidence had any any connection to it in 1888.

Yes.

Whoosh!