Can't get past Maxwell

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby - I think it was the velvet bodice and maroon shawl that were mentioned as being in kelly's room, but nothing about the skirt.

thanks eten
did any of the witnesses that saw her thay night describe her wearing those clothes?

[Fleetwood Mac]

This is not a new topic - but still I struggle to move past Maxwell's statement about seeing MJK at 8.00am and again at 8.45am on the day she was murdered. The possibilities are:
a) her statement is true and accurate
b) she lied
c) she confused the day she saw MJK (contemporary police position)
d) she confused MJK with someone else.

I discount option c) - there is no way someone is going to confuse seeing someone on the day they were murdered where a great fuss is unfolding with seeing them on a different day.
I discount option d) - not only was MJK someone Maxwell knew but she also described her clothes - probably the reasonthe police did not opt for this explanation.
I don't believe it is likely she lied given the caution from the coroner and Abberline's evaluation of her as a good and reliable witness.
That leaves her telling the truth - which again is problematic given the medical evidence (however unreliable) and the Ripper's usual murder timings.

Trying to apply Occam's razor here doesn't help - you just end up with either the medical evidence was subject to mistake or the witness testimony was subject to mistake - I don't find either one a more simple solution than the other.

So, another option, the consideration of which cannot be ignored given the above, is that both the medical evidence and Maxwell were correct. But that way conspiracy theories lie.

It's all a quandary - how on earth do we resolve it - it is clear the police opted for an unlikely explanation to dismiss the witness claims - do we do the same with this inconvenient testimony?

Well, murderers do kill in a victim's home in broad daylight. We know this to be true.

It should be said also that when newspaper reporters were taken to Mary's room during the day, they were struggling to see the contents of the room and so it's fair to say there wasn't a great deal of light getting into that room during daytime (for outsiders to see what was going on inside).

One obstacle is that the medical evidence tells us Mary was murdered lying close to the partition which suggests someone else was in bed with her. You would have to believe that after 8.45am, Mary found a client or some lover and they went to bed to go to sleep. Presumably 9am in the morning at the earliest.

Now, Victorian age sleeping habits weren't the same as ours. They believed that the optimum sleeping pattern was sleep for a few hours, get up at say 4in the morning to do some house chores or something, and then back to sleep for a few hours.

Elizabeth Prater for example got up at 5, went to the Ten Bells and then went back to sleep until 11.

I've never believed that the "oh murder" came from Mary. There is good reason to discount this.

My opinion is that Mary was murdered much earlier than 4am, in line with most of the murders, but the idea that Mary was murdered around 9 in the morning is not as outlandish as some would have us believe (as per the aforementioned points).

[etenguy]

How does the supposition that another woman instead of Kelly was the victim sit with you?

Works for me.

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.

[Aethelwulf]

How does the supposition that another woman instead of Kelly was the victim sit with you?

Works for me.

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

[mpriestnall]

This is not a new topic - but still I struggle to move past Maxwell's statement about seeing MJK at 8.00am and again at 8.45am on the day she was murdered. The possibilities are:
a) her statement is true and accurate
b) she lied
c) she confused the day she saw MJK (contemporary police position)
d) she confused MJK with someone else.

I discount option c) - there is no way someone is going to confuse seeing someone on the day they were murdered where a great fuss is unfolding with seeing them on a different day.
I discount option d) - not only was MJK someone Maxwell knew but she also described her clothes - probably the reasonthe police did not opt for this explanation.
I don't believe it is likely she lied given the caution from the coroner and Abberline's evaluation of her as a good and reliable witness.
That leaves her telling the truth - which again is problematic given the medical evidence (however unreliable) and the Ripper's usual murder timings.

Trying to apply Occam's razor here doesn't help - you just end up with either the medical evidence was subject to mistake or the witness testimony was subject to mistake - I don't find either one a more simple solution than the other.

So, another option, the consideration of which cannot be ignored given the above, is that both the medical evidence and Maxwell were correct. But that way conspiracy theories lie.

It's all a quandary - how on earth do we resolve it - it is clear the police opted for an unlikely explanation to dismiss the witness claims - do we do the same with this inconvenient testimony?

How does the supposition that another woman instead of Kelly was the victim sit with you?

Works for me.

[etenguy]

which tallied with the clothes found in her room but just now I cannot remember the reference for the clothes found in the room.

Hi Abby - I think it was the velvet bodice and maroon shawl that were mentioned as being in kelly's room, but nothing about the skirt.

[etenguy]

I would be surprised if the killer was operating during late morning, even indoors. Everyone was up and buzzing about. He didn't have the cover of night or empty streets to avoid detection or hide any bloodstains. Someone could've easily popped their head through the window and caught him red-handed. If Indian Harry had knocked a little sooner, he may well have been trapped.

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.

[etenguy]

hi eten
can you expound on maxwell describing marys clothes? what did she say she was wearing and what did the other witnesses decribe what mary was wearing?

Hi Abby

Good to see you again.

I am not sure off hand how Maurice Lewis described MJK's dress that morning, but Caroline Maxwell stated at the inquest:

A dark skirt, a velvet body, a maroon shawl, and no hat.

which tallied with the clothes found in her room but just now I cannot remember the reference for the clothes found in the room.

[Abby Normal]

I would be surprised if the killer was operating during late morning, even indoors. Everyone was up and buzzing about. He didn't have the cover of night or empty streets to avoid detection or hide any bloodstains. Someone could've easily popped their head through the window and caught him red-handed. If Indian Harry had knocked a little sooner, he may well have been trapped.

hi Harry
I agree with this. and Maxwells description of there meeting is a little too hutch like for me. not only that according to maxwell Mary was very ill and yet shes out solicitating? dont think so. and it turns out she didnt really know mary all that well either.. only seen her or spoke to her a couple of time over several months. i think probanly a case of mistaken identity, with a dash of embellishment. but i would like to know if maxwell did describe the clothes mary was wearing that night.

[Harry D]

I would be surprised if the killer was operating during late morning, even indoors. Everyone was up and buzzing about. He didn't have the cover of night or empty streets to avoid detection or hide any bloodstains. Someone could've easily popped their head through the window and caught him red-handed. If Indian Harry had knocked a little sooner, he may well have been trapped.

[Abby Normal]

The possibility that she is lying cannot be discounted, but she would be doing so after a caution from the coroner and also without any attention seeking. In addition, Abberline thought her a reliable witness. It is of course possible nevertheless, but it seems such a strange lie to tell. Also, the fact that she could describe MJK's clothing would suggest that she really did see her even if some of the conversational detail is exaggerated.



I think you may be referring to Maurice Lewis. I do not think he gets quite the same references for reliability as Maxwell does and nor does he claim a conversation. A sighting from a distance is much more open to mistake than having a conversation with someone. In fact I think the conversation rules out a mistake - it either happened or Maxwell lied in my view.

hi eten
can you expound on maxwell describing marys clothes? what did she say she was wearing and what did the other witnesses decribe what mary was wearing?

[etenguy]

If I had never heard of the fact that some witnesses do assert a familiar connection with a victim, that was either exaggerated or simply not true, then I would be inclined to give Maxwell more credence. But as it is a fact some people do make these types of claims then Maxwell's story will always be of a suspect nature to me.

The possibility that she is lying cannot be discounted, but she would be doing so after a caution from the coroner and also without any attention seeking. In addition, Abberline thought her a reliable witness. It is of course possible nevertheless, but it seems such a strange lie to tell. Also, the fact that she could describe MJK's clothing would suggest that she really did see her even if some of the conversational detail is exaggerated.

If we recall, there were also claims that someone saw Kelly drinking in the Britannia that morning, but the landlady said it was a slow morning so she was able to say that Kelly had not been in Friday morning.
Mistakes do happen.

I think you may be referring to Maurice Lewis. I do not think he gets quite the same references for reliability as Maxwell does and nor does he claim a conversation. A sighting from a distance is much more open to mistake than having a conversation with someone. In fact I think the conversation rules out a mistake - it either happened or Maxwell lied in my view.

[Wickerman]

If I had never heard of the fact that some witnesses do assert a familiar connection with a victim, that was either exaggerated or simply not true, then I would be inclined to give Maxwell more credence. But as it is a fact some people do make these types of claims then Maxwell's story will always be of a suspect nature to me.

If we recall, there were also claims that someone saw Kelly drinking in the Britannia that morning, but the landlady said it was a slow morning so she was able to say that Kelly had not been in Friday morning.
Mistakes do happen.

[etenguy]

This is not a new topic - but still I struggle to move past Maxwell's statement about seeing MJK at 8.00am and again at 8.45am on the day she was murdered. The possibilities are:
a) her statement is true and accurate
b) she lied
c) she confused the day she saw MJK (contemporary police position)
d) she confused MJK with someone else.

I discount option c) - there is no way someone is going to confuse seeing someone on the day they were murdered where a great fuss is unfolding with seeing them on a different day.
I discount option d) - not only was MJK someone Maxwell knew but she also described her clothes - probably the reasonthe police did not opt for this explanation.
I don't believe it is likely she lied given the caution from the coroner and Abberline's evaluation of her as a good and reliable witness.
That leaves her telling the truth - which again is problematic given the medical evidence (however unreliable) and the Ripper's usual murder timings.

Trying to apply Occam's razor here doesn't help - you just end up with either the medical evidence was subject to mistake or the witness testimony was subject to mistake - I don't find either one a more simple solution than the other.

So, another option, the consideration of which cannot be ignored given the above, is that both the medical evidence and Maxwell were correct. But that way conspiracy theories lie.

It's all a quandary - how on earth do we resolve it - it is clear the police opted for an unlikely explanation to dismiss the witness claims - do we do the same with this inconvenient testimony?