Can't get past Maxwell

[etenguy]

Then we have the same situation as we had with the Richardosn thread, and that is are the witnesses to be believed ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor

This is ever the case. Especially in cases before good forensic science was available to the detectives.

In the specific case of Caroline Maxwell, whose evidence conflicts with the doctors, I am minded to rely on the judgement of the professional law enforcers of the time (Abberline and Dew) - both of whom found her reliable and honest. And of course the corroborative evidence of the description of MJK's clothes.

[Aethelwulf]

Was it disfigured beyond all recognition? I some times wonders as Aethelwulf mentioned earlier if the surviving picture we have has been defaced/altered?

here (https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...red-vandalised). There is definitely something wrong - compare her face with the fine detail of her hair. I certainly think her face has been 'edited' for Victorian decency (not that I would want to look at the unedited version mind - the doctored version is bad enough).

[Aethelwulf]

The writings of Norman Hastings, who spoke to detectives on the Bury investigation, suggest the police were thinking along the lines of a night murder (from Earp's Bury website):

• Scotland Yard felt that “his description was very like that of the man who had been speaking to the young woman Kelly on the night of the crime”
• Scotland Yard “had established the fact that he was missing from his lodgings on the night that Marie Kelly was done to death in her home in Dorset Street”

Unless there is a missing witness account, the man speaking to Kelly must be a reference to Aman. Interesting that into 1889 Hutchinson was considered reliable.

Although not in the police statement, newspaper accounts have Aman 'walking silently':

• Scotland Yard discovered that “he was in the habit of walking about very quietly and had often frightened people by his silent approach”

The Maxwell ID problem remains though. As mentioned previous, Beadle, who has done the main work on Bury, thinks Maxwell is credible and Bury was the short man seen talking to her.

[Varqm]

The writings of Norman Hastings, who spoke to detectives on the Bury investigation, suggest the police were thinking along the lines of a night murder (from Earp's Bury website):

• Scotland Yard felt that “his description was very like that of the man who had been speaking to the young woman Kelly on the night of the crime”
• Scotland Yard “had established the fact that he was missing from his lodgings on the night that Marie Kelly was done to death in her home in Dorset Street”

Unless there is a missing witness account, the man speaking to Kelly must be a reference to Aman. Interesting that into 1889 Hutchinson was considered reliable.

Although not in the police statement, newspaper accounts have Aman 'walking silently':

• Scotland Yard discovered that “he was in the habit of walking about very quietly and had often frightened people by his silent approach”

The Maxwell ID problem remains though. As mentioned previous, Beadle, who has done the main work on Bury, thinks Maxwell is credible and Bury was the short man seen talking to her.

It says "night of the crime".Aman with MJK was in the early morning, around 2 am..
Cox observed ,before midnight,the man walked silently,i.e. Blotchy.

[Varqm]

Hi Varqm

Lizzie Allbrook certainly tells us she was there and did not leave until much later than Harvey. Also, Maurice Lewis was not called. Hutchinson never gave evidence either. However, the coroner seemed to think there was sufficient evidence for the inquest task and the jury agreed with him, so not disagreeing with your substantive point.

Barnett only saw one woman with Kelly,Harvey,not two.
Lewis was fishy,the coroner decided though.
As far as the one day of inquest there is more to it than that.

[Varqm]

Hi Trevor

This is ever the case. Especially in cases before good forensic science was available to the detectives.

In the specific case of Caroline Maxwell, whose evidence conflicts with the doctors, I am minded to rely on the judgement of the professional law enforcers of the time (Abberline and Dew) - both of whom found her reliable and honest. And of course the corroborative evidence of the description of MJK's clothes.

Where is the corroborative evidence of the description of MJK's clothes by Maxwell.The description from the Daily Telegraph version of the inquest matches what description?

[Aethelwulf]

It says "night of the crime".Aman with MJK was in the early morning, around 2 am..
Cox observed ,before midnight,the man walked silently,i.e. Blotchy.

haven't seen a ref to blothcy to be fair, only quiet walking I've seen mentioned is that by Hutch referring to Aman.

As for the time, are saying that midnight is night and 2-4am isn't? I think in this context night is probably just the hours of darkness night, not 12.01 suddenly becoming morning.

[Varqm]

haven't seen a ref to blothcy to be fair, only quiet walking I've seen mentioned is that by Hutch referring to Aman.

As for the time, are saying that midnight is night and 2-4am isn't? I think in this context night is probably just the hours of darkness night, not 12.01 suddenly becoming morning.

Read the inquest.

[etenguy]

Where is the corroborative evidence of the description of MJK's clothes by Maxwell.The description from the Daily Telegraph version of the inquest matches what description?

Hi Varqm

Caroline Maxwell's account is consistent with:

a) Mary Ann Cox who (in line with Maxwell's account of the MJK conversation) stated at the inquest:

She was called Mary Jane. I last saw her alive on Thursday night, at a quarter to twelve, very much intoxicated.

b) Mary Ann Cox who, while giving a lesser description, was nevertheless consistent with Maxwell's description - especially the no hat and no mention of an apron.

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

Also, I believe the description matches the clothes found in MJK's room - but I cannot remember or find the reference for that.

[Aethelwulf]

Read the inquest.

yes, remember now having looked at it again. Doesn't sound like blotchy was heard talking to Kelly, although could assume that if they were walking together. I guess the issue is for blotch to be the killer is that you need to assume Hutch is lying, and I just don't see any reason for that. Whoever the police are referring to in that statement, bloth, Aman or some other lost witness account, opinion was Bury looked very like him. I wasn't trying to drag this off into a discussion about Bury, just thought it would be useful to know there is an account of police thinking that suggests an earlier (night) rather than later (morning after 8.30) T.O.D. As I said, the Maxwell problem remains.

[richardnunweek]

Hi. Look at this scenario
Mrs Maxwell claims to have seen Mary Kelly alive , in daylight hours, This would tell the police that the victim was killed after the sighting, leaving any one with an alibi at that time not part of the investigation.. If Mrs Maxwell was protecting her husband , it would be because he may not have had that alibi during hours of darkness. and she may have had good reason to suspect. I cannot dismiss how the most discussed witness in the Jack the Ripper crimes , happened to live right opposite Milles court the the very house the letter to the police came from.one week earlier.
Regards Richard

[mpriestnall]

Was it disfigured beyond all recognition? I some times wonders as Aethelwulf mentioned earlier if the surviving picture we have has been defaced/altered?

I may be misremembering and can't recall the details of who and where, but I thought there is a documented reference somewhere to this. Also the fact Barnett had to id by the eyes and ears (or hair) would suggest complete facial disfiguration anyway? We have photos
of the victim to judge this by as well.

[Losmandris]

here (https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...red-vandalised). There is definitely something wrong - compare her face with the fine detail of her hair. I certainly think her face has been 'edited' for Victorian decency (not that I would want to look at the unedited version mind - the doctored version is bad enough).

I think this is something that really needs to be focused on. The face in the picture just does not make sense to me and never has. I realise that Barnett is quoted as only identifying MJK by her eyes and her hair/ears but I think if you had now someone intimately as he had, you would be able just to 'know' certainly to be sure if it was 'not' her. Therefore I struggle with the idea that it was not the MJK that Barnett had a relationship with murdered that night.

[Harry D]

There are definitely a lot of mysterious elements to MJK's murder. The victim's hazy past, the post-mortem sightings, Hutch lurking around the crime scene and the fabulous Mr Astrakhan, the amazingly-short inquest, the Ripper letter allegedly sent from Dorset Street, etc. I don't know what they all amount to, and I've yet to read a working theory. Until then, I'll have to be satisfied that it was a perfect storm of peculiarities.

[Losmandris]

I may be misremembering and can't recall the details of who and where, but I thought there is a documented reference somewhere to this. Also the fact Barnett had to id by the eyes and ears (or hair) would suggest complete facial disfiguration anyway? We have photos
of the victim to judge this by as well.

As mentioned above I don't think we can entirely rely on the photo that we have. Do we know if the doctors stitched her face back together as in the case of Eddows or was this impossible because parts/strips? of the face had been actually removed?