Can't get past Maxwell

[etenguy]

I know that feeling Abby!

I had the exact same epiphany around a year ago!

I'd always casually assumed that Maxwell had got the wrong person (the wrong day idea was always weak in my book), but when I looked into it some more, the corroboration of the clothes, amongst other factors, really swayed me.

I realised that, for all the problems which it throws up, I'm inclined to believe in Maxwell's credibility.

I struggle with the implications of this (much later ToD / the body in Millers Court was not the person known as MJK).

In light of the fact that we know Mary had previous for allowing other women to stay in her flat, with gritted teeth I plump for the latter.

Of course, while that explains some of the factors away nicely, it creates other issues (Barnett's identification etc).

I can confirm that I have spent much of the last year since I came to this conclusion asking myself whether I have simply read far too many Agatha Christie novels.

Ms Diddles

Good to see you here.

You are right - the idea that someone else was killed cannot be lightly dismissed if we accept Maxwell is accurate. But then some other behaviours have to be considered:
a) why did Mary wander the streets and talk to Maxwell if she was taking the opportunity to abscond - she would surely want people to think her dead.
b) why did Barnett identify the corpse as MJK, was he involved in a cover up
c) why did the police not suppress Maxwell's evidence - presumably means no police involved in the cover up

For me, MJK's reported behaviour that morning is the strongest indicator that she was not planning to abscond and hope people thought the body found was her. I think it more likely she was killed later than first thought. But it is just my view as I see the evidence currently - I do not dismiss other possibilities.

[Abby Normal]

I know that feeling Abby!

I had the exact same epiphany around a year ago!

I'd always casually assumed that Maxwell had got the wrong person (the wrong day idea was always weak in my book), but when I looked into it some more, the corroboration of the clothes, amongst other factors, really swayed me.

I realised that, for all the problems which it throws up, I'm inclined to believe in Maxwell's credibility.

I struggle with the implications of this (much later ToD / the body in Millers Court was not the person known as MJK).

In light of the fact that we know Mary had previous for allowing other women to stay in her flat, with gritted teeth I plump for the latter.

Of course, while that explains some of the factors away nicely, it creates other issues (Barnett's identification etc).

I can confirm that I have spent much of the last year since I came to this conclusion asking myself whether I have simply read far too many Agatha Christie novels.

hi Diddles
Then throw the apparent Ripper hoax letter that came from Maxwells address (i think Im correct here) and youve really got a good mystery!!! : )

[Ms Diddles]

hey eten
back to your OP. im having a hard time getting past Maxwell too. in the past i had just written her off as a time wasting busy body who only confuses things. but Lord Orsam made a convincing argument a couple of years ago that theres really nothing wrong with or contradicts her testimony. so i gave her a little more credence, but thought more than likely maxwell had the wrong kelly.

but more and more, her describing marys clothes accurately is making me think twice. how could she have the wrong mary if shes got the clothes right?

my world is turned upside down, need to contemplate more lol.

I know that feeling Abby!

I had the exact same epiphany around a year ago!

I'd always casually assumed that Maxwell had got the wrong person (the wrong day idea was always weak in my book), but when I looked into it some more, the corroboration of the clothes, amongst other factors, really swayed me.

I realised that, for all the problems which it throws up, I'm inclined to believe in Maxwell's credibility.

I struggle with the implications of this (much later ToD / the body in Millers Court was not the person known as MJK).

In light of the fact that we know Mary had previous for allowing other women to stay in her flat, with gritted teeth I plump for the latter.

Of course, while that explains some of the factors away nicely, it creates other issues (Barnett's identification etc).

I can confirm that I have spent much of the last year since I came to this conclusion asking myself whether I have simply read far too many Agatha Christie novels.

[Ms Diddles]

This is what I think transpired. MJK was letting prostitute friends use her room. This is why Barnett left her. Shortly after 3am she vacated the premises to allow an unknown woman friend to use the room. That woman brought home JtR and suffered the consequences. MJK returns shortly before 8am and discovers the body. She goes into Dorset street and vomits from what she has just seen, and encounters Maxwell. Still in a daze she retreats to familiar ground in the pub, perhaps confiding in friends to seek advice. She returns to the room and dresses in her dead friends clothes, leaving her own clothes carefully folded. She then disappears back into the mists of obscurity from whence she came.

Maxwell was rock solid and correct, and corroborated by Lewis and others. There is absolutely no reason to doubt her testimony. MJK emptied her stomach but the stomach that contained the fish and chips was in the body of the unknown friend lying dead in No13. The cries of "murder" and the ToD can still apply, just to a person other than MJK.

I expect a torrent of disagreement from traditionalists that will label this conspiracy theory. Among them will be those that fully endorse Richardson and Long as 100% above reproach, but will happily challenge the evidence of Maxwell. I will engage in debate with all but those who like to indulge in pejoratives regarding any different theory.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Typically, I'm quite a traditionalist and anything but a conspiracy theorist, but actually the more I have considered Maxwell's statement over the years the more I think that your theory above (or a variation therof) may be the answer.

I am not saying that I think this is definitely what happened, but it's a valid idea and one that deserves some consideration.

[Aethelwulf]

exactly wulf. If maxwell is correct the obvious conclusion is she was killed in the daylight morning after she saw her and before Bowyer found her corpse.

Yes, I don't understand why Maxwell being correct means the only other possibility is some sort of bizarre cover up on her part.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

The description of clothes is both specific and general at the same time, but certainly it seems to fit with what Mrs Cox describes. It does not prove Maxwell spoke with Mary, but it certainly does not contradict her story.

I came at this from the point of view of trying to understand the police response to Maxwell, dismissing her evidence as 'she made a mistake about the day she meet MJK' (or indeed mistook who she spoke to). That made absolutely no sense to me - how do you confuse the day someone was murdered with so much press and public attention with another day. It beggars belief. Especially in light of Abberline and Dew both describing Maxwell as a reliable witness.

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?

[Abby Normal]

You haven't provided anything like a convincing argument that he was mistaken though. The very obvious alternative is that Kelly was murdered after 8.30 am. Not some fantasy plot from a comic book as per GB's post.

exactly wulf. If maxwell is correct the obvious conclusion is she was killed in the daylight morning after she saw her and before Bowyer found her corpse.

[etenguy]

hey eten
back to your OP. im having a hard time getting past Maxwell too. in the past i had just written her off as a time wasting busy body who only confuses things. but Lord Orsam made a convincing argument a couple of years ago that theres really nothing wrong with or contradicts her testimony. so i gave her a little more credence, but thought more than likely maxwell had the wrong kelly.

but more and more, her describing marys clothes accurately is making me think twice. how could she have the wrong mary if shes got the clothes right?

my world is turned upside down, need to contemplate more lol.

Hi Abby

The description of clothes is both specific and general at the same time, but certainly it seems to fit with what Mrs Cox describes. It does not prove Maxwell spoke with Mary, but it certainly does not contradict her story.

I came at this from the point of view of trying to understand the police response to Maxwell, dismissing her evidence as 'she made a mistake about the day she meet MJK' (or indeed mistook who she spoke to). That made absolutely no sense to me - how do you confuse the day someone was murdered with so much press and public attention with another day. It beggars belief. Especially in light of Abberline and Dew both describing Maxwell as a reliable witness.

[FISHY1118]

Dear all.

I know I've said most of this on other threads, but it needs retelling.

Firstly though, wrt Gbinoz's idea about somebody else being the victim, I agree and if I hadn't read your post would have written something very similar, but I'll get to that below.

1. Let's get it crystal clear, does anybody honestly think she got the day wrong? I've said many times before think of her week.

Boring mundane monotiny.
Boring mundane monotiny
Boring mundane monotiny
Lord Mayor's show and neighbour murdered by JTR
Boring mundane monotiny.
Boring mundane monotiny.

And she was interviewed on the day.
She got the day right.

Also just consider what you may have done today. If the Police interviewed me tonight and asked what I'd done this morning and I told them, I'd be a bit pissed off if in 140 years time people casually dismissed me saying I simply got the day wrong. I know we have a subconscious view of Victorians that because they'd never ate a curry, used a telephone or sent an email that they were stupid, unsophisticated and prone to flights of fancy, but actually these were gritty, down to earth, industrious people making the best of a bad situation.


2. She saw someone else. OK. Earlier today a neighbour of mine walked past my house. I've lived in the same cul-de-sac as her for over 20 years. But I don't know her name, nor anything else about her. But I know what she looks like and what house she lives at. Again, if the Police interview me tonight and I tell them she walked past my house at 9.45 A. M then that's it! No agenda, no weirdness, no looking for fame, that woman from that house went past my house at 9.45 this morning. Why do we have so much trouble thinking Maxwell is the same?

3. T. O. D. As pointed out, it's still not 100% today. The doctors did their best but may have been wrong. And, forgive me if I have missed something but I can't remember if they took into account the condition of her body. Wrt surface area to volume ratio, a body in Mary's condition will lose heat much faster than an intact one, especially when "central heaters" like the liver have been removed. I'm sure they used rigor and other factors, but on a cold morning an ice cold body could lead any decent doctor to possibly err a bit.

4. I. D. Consider Barnett's situation. He's told his ex girlfriend/common law wife is dead. She's been found murdered in her bed, in her room and we just need you to do the formal identification. Now she's in a pretty bad way, we've done what we can but prepare yourself. When they pull the sheet back is he really going to pause and say "Let me just have a really good look at her eyes and hair/ears so I can be sure."? He surely took a cursory look and said "Yes, that's her." Maybe he didn't and I'm doing him a disservice but of all the inponderables I would say Barnet mistaking the mess he was shown in the mortuary was more likely wrong than Maxwell. (Or did he view her through the window? I can't remember now.)

If he was mistaken, then the only possibility is that the body was someone else. Which leads to-

4. O. K. Let's get one thing very clear, I'm not, for a second, saying that there was some grand conspiracy or that Mary was a secret agent etc, but consider for a moment if Maxwell was right. Then the obvious conclusion is that somebody else was murdered in Mary's room. If there was no other reason to think this then we could abandon it without too much thought. But there is. Were other women known to use Mary's room? Yes. Is the time of death problematic? Yes. Is there a witness to corroborate Mary being alive after the body was dead? Yes. Is that witness supported by other witnesses? Yes/maybe. Add in the other little extras and an alternative scenario is not outrageous. Again, to be crystal clear, I don't believe for a moment that Mary woke up that day and thought "I'm going to do a runner tonight." But the possibility that she came back to her room, found the body, maybe shrieked "Oh, murder!" went outside and vomited, collected her thoughts and realised that, hold on, everyone will assume it's me, this is an opportunity. The only thing she would need would be for Barnet to do one last thing for her and mis-identify the body and she could dissappear, leaving the East end, her debts and that particular life behind. And didn't one of the witnesses who said they saw Kelly in the pub that morning say she was with Barnet? (From memory she called him by another name but a name he was known by, apologies if I've got that totally wrong.)
Anyone who says that it is ridiculous or, as above, an April fool is with respect not opening their mind enough, in my opinion.

5. Finally. People have been hanged on the evidence of one person so simply dismissing Maxwell because she's inconvenient is just not good enough.

And the very final point. Dismiss Maxwell if you want, but don't dare try and defend Long, Lawende, Schwarz etc. Dismiss her, fine. But dismiss everyone else involved and agree that the whole thing is ultimately pointless!

With apologies for the length of post.

Kind regards.

[Aethelwulf]

Dear all.

If he was mistaken, then the only possibility is that the body was someone else. Which leads to-

You haven't provided anything like a convincing argument that he was mistaken though. The very obvious alternative is that Kelly was murdered after 8.30 am. Not some fantasy plot from a comic book as per GB's post.

[Tecs]

Dear all.

I know I've said most of this on other threads, but it needs retelling.

Firstly though, wrt Gbinoz's idea about somebody else being the victim, I agree and if I hadn't read your post would have written something very similar, but I'll get to that below.

1. Let's get it crystal clear, does anybody honestly think she got the day wrong? I've said many times before think of her week.

Boring mundane monotiny.
Boring mundane monotiny
Boring mundane monotiny
Lord Mayor's show and neighbour murdered by JTR
Boring mundane monotiny.
Boring mundane monotiny.

And she was interviewed on the day.
She got the day right.

Also just consider what you may have done today. If the Police interviewed me tonight and asked what I'd done this morning and I told them, I'd be a bit pissed off if in 140 years time people casually dismissed me saying I simply got the day wrong. I know we have a subconscious view of Victorians that because they'd never ate a curry, used a telephone or sent an email that they were stupid, unsophisticated and prone to flights of fancy, but actually these were gritty, down to earth, industrious people making the best of a bad situation.


2. She saw someone else. OK. Earlier today a neighbour of mine walked past my house. I've lived in the same cul-de-sac as her for over 20 years. But I don't know her name, nor anything else about her. But I know what she looks like and what house she lives at. Again, if the Police interview me tonight and I tell them she walked past my house at 9.45 A. M then that's it! No agenda, no weirdness, no looking for fame, that woman from that house went past my house at 9.45 this morning. Why do we have so much trouble thinking Maxwell is the same?

3. T. O. D. As pointed out, it's still not 100% today. The doctors did their best but may have been wrong. And, forgive me if I have missed something but I can't remember if they took into account the condition of her body. Wrt surface area to volume ratio, a body in Mary's condition will lose heat much faster than an intact one, especially when "central heaters" like the liver have been removed. I'm sure they used rigor and other factors, but on a cold morning an ice cold body could lead any decent doctor to possibly err a bit.

4. I. D. Consider Barnett's situation. He's told his ex girlfriend/common law wife is dead. She's been found murdered in her bed, in her room and we just need you to do the formal identification. Now she's in a pretty bad way, we've done what we can but prepare yourself. When they pull the sheet back is he really going to pause and say "Let me just have a really good look at her eyes and hair/ears so I can be sure."? He surely took a cursory look and said "Yes, that's her." Maybe he didn't and I'm doing him a disservice but of all the inponderables I would say Barnet mistaking the mess he was shown in the mortuary was more likely wrong than Maxwell. (Or did he view her through the window? I can't remember now.)

If he was mistaken, then the only possibility is that the body was someone else. Which leads to-

4. O. K. Let's get one thing very clear, I'm not, for a second, saying that there was some grand conspiracy or that Mary was a secret agent etc, but consider for a moment if Maxwell was right. Then the obvious conclusion is that somebody else was murdered in Mary's room. If there was no other reason to think this then we could abandon it without too much thought. But there is. Were other women known to use Mary's room? Yes. Is the time of death problematic? Yes. Is there a witness to corroborate Mary being alive after the body was dead? Yes. Is that witness supported by other witnesses? Yes/maybe. Add in the other little extras and an alternative scenario is not outrageous. Again, to be crystal clear, I don't believe for a moment that Mary woke up that day and thought "I'm going to do a runner tonight." But the possibility that she came back to her room, found the body, maybe shrieked "Oh, murder!" went outside and vomited, collected her thoughts and realised that, hold on, everyone will assume it's me, this is an opportunity. The only thing she would need would be for Barnet to do one last thing for her and mis-identify the body and she could dissappear, leaving the East end, her debts and that particular life behind. And didn't one of the witnesses who said they saw Kelly in the pub that morning say she was with Barnet? (From memory she called him by another name but a name he was known by, apologies if I've got that totally wrong.)
Anyone who says that it is ridiculous or, as above, an April fool is with respect not opening their mind enough, in my opinion.

5. Finally. People have been hanged on the evidence of one person so simply dismissing Maxwell because she's inconvenient is just not good enough.

And the very final point. Dismiss Maxwell if you want, but don't dare try and defend Long, Lawende, Schwarz etc. Dismiss her, fine. But dismiss everyone else involved and agree that the whole thing is ultimately pointless!

With apologies for the length of post.

Kind regards.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

Mrs Cox also described MJK's clothing - no mention of an apron in her description either.

Right, yet that was a different time of day.
Perhaps the apron was day-wear?

[etenguy]

Isn't it also reported that Mary always wore a clean white apron.
If so, how could Maxwell see her clothes?

Hi Wickerman

Mrs Cox also described MJK's clothing - no mention of an apron in her description either.

[Wickerman]

hey eten
back to your OP. im having a hard time getting past Maxwell too. in the past i had just written her off as a time wasting busy body who only confuses things. but Lord Orsam made a convincing argument a couple of years ago that theres really nothing wrong with or contradicts her testimony. so i gave her a little more credence, but thought more than likely maxwell had the wrong kelly.

but more and more, her describing marys clothes accurately is making me think twice. how could she have the wrong mary if shes got the clothes right?

my world is turned upside down, need to contemplate more lol.

Isn't it also reported that Mary always wore a clean white apron.
If so, how could Maxwell see her clothes?


I guess I was thinking of Walter Dew:
"She was usually in the company of two or three of her kind, fairly neatly dressed and invariably wearing a clean white apron, but no hat."

[Wickerman]

Hi FM

When the issue of MJK identification has arisen in the past, identification by ears has been considered not especially reliable. Posters have suggested, not unreasonably, that Barnett identified MJK based on eyes and hair (and the ears was a misheard version of hair). That does seem to make some sense unless MJK had some form of distinctive ears.

I also wonder about the eyes - by the time Barnett came to identify the body, the eyes would likely have become opaque.

Altogether, I think relying on one person's identification, and based on such unusual criteria, unfortunate. I think it would not be wrong to challenge whether Barnett could make the identification he did on that basis.

The scenario posited by George is not one I subscribe to, but I am not sure the identification of MJK is the argument that undermines it.

I think it was Dr Bond who reported her ears were cut off. Hebbert certainly did in his later review of the case - "eyelids, eyebrows, ears, nose, lips....had been cut off".
She was identified by her 'hair', not ear. Her hair was her most noticeable feature. It's a pronunciation thing, and likely an issue of accent.