Can't get past Maxwell

[etenguy]

Or she could simply have been mistaken. Lying or not lying are not the only two options.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

In what way mistaken, if not about the time, the day or the person she was talking to?

[c.d.]

The problem is that her statement doesn't exist in a vacuum. If she is correct, then the doctors' TOD is wrong. If the doctors are correct, then she is wrong. There is no good answer to this problem. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I agree wholeheartedly about the times and days - I don't think she confused who she was talking to either. That leaves MJK alive at around 8.30am or Maxwell is lying for some unknown purpose.

Or she could simply have been mistaken. Lying or not lying are not the only two options.

c.d.

[etenguy]

The fact that she adamantly stuck to her story has no bearing on its validity. It simply shows that she herself believed it to be true. c.d.

This is true, of course. But if Maxwell was wrong, she either mixed up the day or times all within a couple of hours (and we know her movements were corroborated) or she mistook someone else for Mary who either had the same name as MJK or did not correct Maxwell when she called her Mary. The unknown person would also have had to dress similarly to MJK. Since the unknown person knew Maxwell and called her Carrie we would also have to assume this confusion was not corrected after the event. Altogether the simpler explanation is that Maxwell spoke with MJK at around 8.30am or she lied.

[etenguy]

Not ridiculous at all.

I cant belive that Maxwell got her times or days wrong so shortly after the event, the police interviewed her the same day.
If Maxwell was correct and bearing in mind she adamantly stuck to her story even when told off by the Coroner, then Kelly was alive when supposedly dead by then.

I agree wholeheartedly about the times and days - I don't think she confused who she was talking to either. That leaves MJK alive at around 8.30am or Maxwell is lying for some unknown purpose.

[etenguy]

The clue may be in Mary Ann Cox's testimony:

[Coroner] You say she was drunk? - I did not notice she was drunk until she said good night. The man closed the door. By the Jury: There was a light in the window, but I saw nothing, as the blinds were down. I should know the man again, if I saw him.

Cox suggests here that she would have been able to see through the window and into the room in the event the blinds weren't down (due to the light in the window). Given the darkness of the room during daylight hours, as per newspapers reporters, this suggests to me the light was more than a small candle in a broken bottle.

Mary may well have had the fire burning when she returned to her room with Blotchy, i.e. to keep warm on a cold night.

In addition to this, Cox stated:

Deceased was still singing at one o'clock when I returned. I remained in the room for a minute to warm my hands as it was raining, and went out again.

I'm not sure how exactly she warms her hands in the space of a minute, unless of course Cox had a fire going also.

The idea that Joe Barnett burned the clothes in an act of revenge must be a non-starter, in the absence of something to corroborate Joe being a massive idiot who went 'round throwing clothes in fires when he didn't get his own way.

Hi FM

I cannot possibly know for sure, but don't think it too far fetched that an angry (rather than vengeful) person might do something irrational. There are other possibilities of course, but it is noteworthy that the Harvey clothes were burned but Mary's clothes stayed nicely folded on the chair.

[c.d.]

Not ridiculous at all.

I cant belive that Maxwell got her times or days wrong so shortly after the event, the police interviewed her the same day.
If Maxwell was correct and bearing in mind she adamantly stuck to her story even when told off by the Coroner, then Kelly was alive when supposedly dead by then.

The fact that she adamantly stuck to her story has no bearing on its validity. It simply shows that she herself believed it to be true.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Mrs Cox gave a description which matches Maxwell's;

"What clothes had Mary Jane on ? - She had no hat; a red pelerine and a shabby skirt."

thanks joshua
which clothes were found in marys room?

[spyglass]

you need to explain the motive for what is a ridiculous suggestion IMO

Not ridiculous at all.

I cant belive that Maxwell got her times or days wrong so shortly after the event, the police interviewed her the same day.
If Maxwell was correct and bearing in mind she adamantly stuck to her story even when told off by the Coroner, then Kelly was alive when supposedly dead by then.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have never found the explanation of clothes being burnt to provide light for the killer plausible. I don't think Mary burnt them either. I cannot know what happened, there is no evidence, but I speculate that Barnett burnt Harvey's clothes after she left on Thursday night out of anger. From Barnett's perspective, she was the cause of his leaving MJK and then he turns up Thursday night and finds her there with MJK. She leaves straight away to avoid him and he burns the clothes she left in a fit of anger (after all he had got so angry about Harvey staying with MJK it had led to arguments and his leaving Miller's Court). Pure speculation, no evidence, I cannot defend it - but seems a likely scenario to me.

The clue may be in Mary Ann Cox's testimony:

[Coroner] You say she was drunk? - I did not notice she was drunk until she said good night. The man closed the door. By the Jury: There was a light in the window, but I saw nothing, as the blinds were down. I should know the man again, if I saw him.

Cox suggests here that she would have been able to see through the window and into the room in the event the blinds weren't down (due to the light in the window). Given the darkness of the room during daylight hours, as per newspapers reporters, this suggests to me the light was more than a small candle in a broken bottle.

Mary may well have had the fire burning when she returned to her room with Blotchy, i.e. to keep warm on a cold night.

In addition to this, Cox stated:

Deceased was still singing at one o'clock when I returned. I remained in the room for a minute to warm my hands as it was raining, and went out again.

I'm not sure how exactly she warms her hands in the space of a minute, unless of course Cox had a fire going also.

The idea that Joe Barnett burned the clothes in an act of revenge must be a non-starter, in the absence of something to corroborate Joe being a massive idiot who went 'round throwing clothes in fires when he didn't get his own way.

[etenguy]

I wrote this on another thread. Apologies if it sounds a bit caustic.

Hi Darryl

A good post always bears repeating, and this is a good post covering a range of points. Thanks for raising them as they do get to the heart of some of the key issues. I will respond to each point - but some will be speculation which may or may not be helpful. I will ignore the tone of some of the comments - that was probably in response to the original post being in a thread that was getting heated.

Right so Jack killed Mary at say between nine and ten in the morning. The cry of Murder at around 4 in the morning, right smack in-between the two Doctor's death estimates was entirely coincidental even though Sarah Lewis thought it came from the direction of Mary's room, and Elizabeth Prater thought it was somewhere in the court also. After all the cry was common though. Elizabeth Prater said, in most accounts the cry was common from the street not the court.

I have never been convinced that the cry of 'murder' had anything to do with the murder of MJK. None of the murderer's other victim's had an opportunity to scream out as far as we know and given the doctor's explanation of how MJK was likely murdered, she was likely asleep at the time the attack started and/or very quickly subdued. The doctor speculated that the killer was in bed with her. If she had a chance to scream out would she have shouted 'murder' - I think a scream or a shout for help more likely. When people shouted murder in the streets of Whitechapel, which was common by all accounts, I think it was more for effect and to perhaps deter a potential attacker. Cannot rule out that this was MJK, but I think it unlikely had anything to do with the actual murder.

When Catherine Pickett went banging on Mary's door at 7 30 in the morning, she wasn't dead, just asleep or out and about, even though nobody saw her out and about at that time and if the knocking did wake Mary up, she then got dressed , went out and got herself some ale, drunk it, threw it up, ate some fish and potatoes, possibly had to cook the meal all in an hour with the horrors of drink on her. Whilst nobody saw her going out, probably buying the ale and throwing it back up.

You raise a good point about the food she had eaten. There is nothing in this account that does not fit with the story told by Caroline Maxwell though. It does not mean Maxwell was absolutely correct but it corroborates her story. According to her Mary had said she had been for the hair of the dog and was on her way home - this was between 8.00am and 8.30am. This would explain where Mary was when Catherine Pickett knocked and might also explain where Mary got her meal, which very well could have contributed to her vomiting as she had told Maxwell. Also, although we have no record of anyone else having seen her at this time, we do have the report from Maxwell who claims to have spoken with her.

Speaking of nobody seeing her, nobody saw her bring a client back between nine and ten, or probably solicit him for that matter [ apart from possibly Mrs Maxwell, plaid coat man] on Dorset st at the closest, maybe even on Commercial rd even though it was probably busy around that time, including her landlord or his assistant who probably would have asked her for his weekly rent [ note weekly IE probably paid on the same day each week Friday, not Thursday night]. Nobody saw Mary from the court put her hand through the broken window either, though said window leads directly on to the court. And the killer was really in luck because nobody saw him leave Mary's room half an hour later in broad daylight. Lucky for him he changed his MO from being a night stalker killing undercover of darkness, where he could more likely, [and did] slip away during the night.

Well, of course MJK was seen with a man by both Maxwell and Lewis on that morning, although one or both may have been mistaken. I do not place great faith in Lewis's testimony. We have no other reported sightings, but then it was not an uncommon sight and people around would likely not take any notice.

As for the murderer potentially changing his timing if the murder occurred at 9.00am ish, this was the first time he had an opportunity arise to kill within a building which he may felt was a safer environment (though there are plenty of risk still). It was not just the timing he changed (if the murder did take place at 9.00am(ish), but also the location and also the level of mutilation of the body.

We have no reports of a man seen leaving MJK's room, but then no-one was looking out for that and the murderer could have timed it to not darw attention to himself. This was not the first time the murderer left a murder site for busy streets not under the cover of darkness - the same happened at Hanbury street if you believe Annie Chapman was killed at around 5.30am (which I tend to think is most likely).

Speaking of darkness Abberline's perfectly plausible explanation of the remains of the ladies clothing in the grate being burnt to give the killer light must be wrong, after all he really wouldn't need that light at ten in the morning. so why Mary burnt some clothing , [possibly Maria Harvey's] is anyone's guess.

I have never found the explanation of clothes being burnt to provide light for the killer plausible. I don't think Mary burnt them either. I cannot know what happened, there is no evidence, but I speculate that Barnett burnt Harvey's clothes after she left on Thursday night out of anger. From Barnett's perspective, she was the cause of his leaving MJK and then he turns up Thursday night and finds her there with MJK. She leaves straight away to avoid him and he burns the clothes she left in a fit of anger (after all he had got so angry about Harvey staying with MJK it had led to arguments and his leaving Miller's Court). Pure speculation, no evidence, I cannot defend it - but seems a likely scenario to me.

As is why Mrs Maxwell was interviewed on the ninth, and yet because her testimony disagreed wholly with what the police thought, why the Police, who would surely have asked around didn't find anybody else to testify on the twelve to back the timing of her death [mid morning], three days later even though say, Maria Harvey testified without really adding anything to when Mary was killed. Strange that.

Of course the police did find someone else - Maurice Lewis, but they chose to ignore him. They did also make enquiries of others who failed to provide any useful information in this respect. Not sure if that is because they did not see MJK or if it was because they wanted to stay at a distance from the murders - it has been suggested some people were scared to get involved. And we do not know what other information the police received but chose to ignore. And the whole inquest for MJK was rushed and not undertaken to the usual standards (an issue for another dedicated thread I think, rather than here). So I agree, there are a lot of questions to be answered in this space.

Oh and i almost forgot Maurice Lewis who saw Mary even later and in a pub drinking with people at that. The killer must have worked at the speed of light to get Mary back to her room unseen and then cut her up and leave all within forty five mins

I tend to agree with you here - Lewis most likely was incorrect - he either got the time wrong, saw someone else or lied. If he told the truth and was not mistaken about the time - then we really do have to consider whose body was found at Miller's Court.

PS Apologies if i am wrong but i cannot find anywhere were Mary told Caroline that she was from limerick. Only - I believe she was from Limerick, or I heard etc
Regards Darryl

Can't help with this question, but didn't want to just leave it hanging - maybe someone else can shed some light here.

[mpriestnall]

you need to explain the motive for what is a ridiculous suggestion IMO

Here is one scenario to support the idea of relocating Kelly rather than murdering her.

Let assume Kelly had the "goods" on Astrakhan who she blackmailing Astrakhan (Jack being "Blotchy" working in cahoots with Aman at Miller's Court). One or more of the earlier victims were co-blackmailers.

Jack was arrested immediately post the double-event. Warren/Anderson/Swanson etc learn of the identities of Jack and Aman, in addition to the motive for the murders so far. They also know the connection between the murderers and one or more of the victims and Kelly.

With the top end of the police now knowing the facts of the case, Jack and Aman consider it too risky to murder Kelly. Perhaps they fear Kelly may have told Barnett about the blackmail plot and the murder of Kelly's co-blackmailers. So they fear that there are two people (Kelly and Barnett) who have knowledge that would send them to the gallows.

Therefore Jack/Aman decide it would be safer to relocate Kelly. "You'll be alright for what I have told you". Kelly is agreeable because she is living in fear of Jack and her circumstances cannot be much worse, which she expects would improve after the move. Joe Barnett, supportive of the move because of his affection for Kelly and out of fear for his own position, willingly supplies a false background for Kelly at the inquest. The false background is supplied to him by the authorities. This hides Kelly's real identity and background and protects Jack/Aman by hiding the link to her.

The corrupt police chiefs are intent on protecting Jack/Aman (for whatever reason) overriding their concerns for the real Miller's Court victim, so are willing co-conspirators in the relocation of Kelly and the cover up of the previous murders.

[etenguy]

There was an element of boldness and risk to each of the murders. The killer never had complete control of the crime scene. However, Dutfield's Yard was a pitch black passageway, Diemschutz could barely make out the body. Buck's Row and Mitre Square were both poorly lit and had multiple escape routes.

The later he committed these kinds of murders, the higher chance he had of being caught. At least in Hanbury Street there was no constable on patrol and he could've hopped the fence if he had been seen by one of the residents. There still would've been less people moseying about at 5am than there would be at 9-10 am. It was the Lord Mayor's Day when MJK was killed, so presumably the streets would've been even busier than usual.

I agree with you, Harry - to have committed the murder at 9.00am (ish) and then leave into busy streets was a risk. Especially within a building where he might have been trapped. But I suspect that whatever time the murder happened the murderer thought they were safer in an indoor environment than on the street (and certainly the manner in which poor MJK was mutilated suggests he did not feel the need to rush). The only risk points coming into the busy street is leaving the building, which he might have timed to avoid drawing attention and ensuring that any blood was not obvious beyond that people might expect from men at that time. Not knowing a murder had taken place, most people would not be vigilant about a random man on the street, especially with the bustle of the Lord Mayor's show.

[Harry D]

Hi Harry

You make a good point. Though if we are correct about the canonical five, he chose a site next to a drinking club where he could have been trapped - and perhaps almost was. The same with Mitre Square and the backyard at Hanbury street. That is also a site where people were beginning to rise for work and it was a market day so the streets were getting busier. It would seem these types of considerations did not feature large in the murderer's thoughts when he was committing his crimes.

There was an element of boldness and risk to each of the murders. The killer never had complete control of the crime scene. However, Dutfield's Yard was a pitch black passageway, Diemschutz could barely make out the body. Buck's Row and Mitre Square were both poorly lit and had multiple escape routes.

The later he committed these kinds of murders, the higher chance he had of being caught. At least in Hanbury Street there was no constable on patrol and he could've hopped the fence if he had been seen by one of the residents. There still would've been less people moseying about at 5am than there would be at 9-10 am. It was the Lord Mayor's Day when MJK was killed, so presumably the streets would've been even busier than usual.

[mpriestnall]

Hi Mpriestnall

I have heard a couple of versions of 'it was someone else' - from witness protection to hiding from creditors to at the extreme avoiding a royal hit squad. The restricted identification and rushed inquest lends credence to a cover up - and there have been others that have since come to light, such as the Cleveland Street Scandal. But even if Maxwell is correct - MJK was not behaving in a way that suggests she was at the centre of some conspiracy to whisk her into hiding, so I don't think this is the answer.

OK thanks.