Can't get past Maxwell

[richardnunweek]

Hi Recall Mrs Praters reference 'She were a jacket , and Bonnet, , I don't even own any'. most likely what Kelly was wearing when she was attacked,, thus the police suggesting they were burnt because they were blood stained, but for what reason ? Also it would disregard all the witnesses that night apart from Praters claim to have said that,

[etenguy]

What newspaper report? She was believed to generally wear a black velvet jacket?

I don't remember and not inclined to review them again - maybe someone else will remember, it is quoted often.

[Herlock Sholmes]

on the contrary, I too am a fan of crime fiction. I like the classics though. Some of my favourites are The ABC Murders, Why Didn't they ask Evans, and Endless Night by Agatha C. Just read The Hog's Back Mystery by Freeman Wills Crofts, which is very good, as is The Poisoned Chocolates Case by Anthony Berkeley. I also like the Dalgleish and Wycliffe series.

You got any recommendations - you seem to be something of a scholar of the genre?

I’ll recommend the Dr Thorndyke stories by R Austin Freeman (if you like Holmes) and John Dickson Carr’s Gideon Fell stories.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m assuming that when Caroline Maxwell mentioned going to get her husbands breakfast at Bishopsgate Street, this means todays Bishopsgate? If so….why was she going that far just to get her husband something to eat?

[Fleetwood Mac]

'Two important pieces of medical evidence:

1) Partially digested food in the stomach, including potatoes.

2) Mary murdered when she was undressed and against the partition, which suggests the client was in bed with her and it had been agreed that he was staying for a period of time longer than your average punter agreement.

Whatever the witnesses said, and Caroline Maxwell isn't the only one on shaky foundations, it would suggest to me a night-time murder.

[DJA]

I’m assuming that when Caroline Maxwell mentioned going to get her husbands breakfast at Bishopsgate Street, this means todays Bishopsgate? If so….why was she going that far just to get her husband something to eat?

MoEML: Bishopsgate Street

[spyglass]

Where does it say a velvet garment was found in MJK's room? Abberline did an inventory but the list does not exist.

According to Maxwell MJK said she was drinking at Ringers before meeting Maxwell at around 8 am..Bars ,especially near the market open early,they could open by law at 5 am,if I remember right,early.
It did not really say she was drunk from last night and continuously that morning.

I dont have any books near me at present, but I do know that a reporter from one newspaper was allowed into the room that day ( possibly within hours of Kelly being found )
He describes the clothes including the purple velvet bodice over the back of a chair ( not in the fire )
As I remember it, the description was almost identical to what Maxwell describes Kelly as wearing when claimed to have seeing her.
To me, this has always added strength to Maxwells claim.

[Varqm]

I dont have any books near me at present, but I do know that a reporter from one newspaper was allowed into the room that day ( possibly within hours of Kelly being found )
He describes the clothes including the purple velvet bodice over the back of a chair ( not in the fire )
As I remember it, the description was almost identical to what Maxwell describes Kelly as wearing when claimed to have seeing her.
To me, this has always added strength to Maxwells claim.

MJK did not have an extensive wardrobe,she was poor.How do we know it's generally what she wore or wore it a lot of times and some people knew it.Maxwell talked to her 2x.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that the clothes found in the fire place might give us a strong pointer as to whether Maxwell was right or wrong in her sighting of Mary. The burning of clothing seems unusual for someone as poor as Mary. Any surplus clothing would likely have been kept for pawning or selling (or even perhaps for repairing her existing clothing with patches etc) so I think that we can very reasonably suggest that the clothes were burned by the killer and, as there was only a small candle in the room, it was probably to provide light. This suggests the darkness of nighttime to me. That small room might have been poorly lit but I find it unlikely that Mary would have been stumbling about in the dark in daylight hours. There were two windows after all so light would probably have been required only in the evenings.

Alternatively Kelly might have lit a fire when she entered the room with her killer. If that was the case then why would he have burned the clothes? Possibly he wanted to damp down the existing fire just before he left the room? He might even have used them to clean himself up first although he wouldn’t have needed to have burned them as a means of destroying evidence of course. A fire might have suggested to potential visitors that Kelly was at home leading to suspicion when she didn’t respond to the knocking. So perhaps this was simply a precaution on the killer’s part? Again this seems to point to the hours of darkness when the glow of a fire would have been most visible through the windows. Also, for someone who didn’t know where her next meal was coming from, the materials to light a fire might have been used sparingly so it’s worth asking if she would have bothered lighting a fire during the daylight hours when she was in and out (or mainly out?) I can imagine there being days when the fire never got lit at all. It’s a pity that the police didn’t enter straight away so that we could know about any remaining heat in the ashes so that they might have been able to gauge how long the fire had been burning to some extent.

On the Chapman murder the reasonable point was made about the perils of a TOD of around 5.30 with people milling around and the risks involved. So the point is even more valid in the case of Kelly. If Kelly was seen for a second time by Maxwell at around 8.45 then this would seem a huge risk if the killer had met her and gone back to her room after that hour. Would a man who knew that he’d been seen by numerous people have gone on to murder Kelly? It seems a little unlikely.

Questions worth asking in regard to Maxwell’s testimony are - doesn’t she seem a bit ‘familiar’ in their conversation considering that they had only previously spoken twice? - would a woman who had just thrown up her hair-of-the-dog have immediately headed back to the pub? - in that state, and after apparently having had the money for a beer, would she have been looking for a punter?

I wouldn’t come down too firmly on either side on this issue but I tend slightly toward Kelly being dead before the Maxwell’s sighting and as it seems unlikely that Maxwell could have been mistaken in her identification (although I don’t place much significance in the fact that she recognised Kelly’s clothing) I’m only left with Maxwell lying. But with no great level of confidence though.

[Varqm]

It been often argued some clothes were burned on order to see what he was doing,he did a lot to MJK,kind of took his time, and possibly for warmth even.I believe in the first.
But for arguments sake JTR could have gotten blood on his clothes and burned one of it so he could go out without blood on him so late in the morning and the clothes could not be traced to him.

[Abby Normal]

I think that the clothes found in the fire place might give us a strong pointer as to whether Maxwell was right or wrong in her sighting of Mary. The burning of clothing seems unusual for someone as poor as Mary. Any surplus clothing would likely have been kept for pawning or selling (or even perhaps for repairing her existing clothing with patches etc) so I think that we can very reasonably suggest that the clothes were burned by the killer and, as there was only a small candle in the room, it was probably to provide light. This suggests the darkness of nighttime to me. That small room might have been poorly lit but I find it unlikely that Mary would have been stumbling about in the dark in daylight hours. There were two windows after all so light would probably have been required only in the evenings.

Alternatively Kelly might have lit a fire when she entered the room with her killer. If that was the case then why would he have burned the clothes? Possibly he wanted to damp down the existing fire just before he left the room? He might even have used them to clean himself up first although he wouldn’t have needed to have burned them as a means of destroying evidence of course. A fire might have suggested to potential visitors that Kelly was at home leading to suspicion when she didn’t respond to the knocking. So perhaps this was simply a precaution on the killer’s part? Again this seems to point to the hours of darkness when the glow of a fire would have been most visible through the windows. Also, for someone who didn’t know where her next meal was coming from, the materials to light a fire might have been used sparingly so it’s worth asking if she would have bothered lighting a fire during the daylight hours when she was in and out (or mainly out?) I can imagine there being days when the fire never got lit at all. It’s a pity that the police didn’t enter straight away so that we could know about any remaining heat in the ashes so that they might have been able to gauge how long the fire had been burning to some extent.

On the Chapman murder the reasonable point was made about the perils of a TOD of around 5.30 with people milling around and the risks involved. So the point is even more valid in the case of Kelly. If Kelly was seen for a second time by Maxwell at around 8.45 then this would seem a huge risk if the killer had met her and gone back to her room after that hour. Would a man who knew that he’d been seen by numerous people have gone on to murder Kelly? It seems a little unlikely.

Questions worth asking in regard to Maxwell’s testimony are - doesn’t she seem a bit ‘familiar’ in their conversation considering that they had only previously spoken twice? - would a woman who had just thrown up her hair-of-the-dog have immediately headed back to the pub? - in that state, and after apparently having had the money for a beer, would she have been looking for a punter?

I wouldn’t come down too firmly on either side on this issue but I tend slightly toward Kelly being dead before the Maxwell’s sighting and as it seems unlikely that Maxwell could have been mistaken in her identification (although I don’t place much significance in the fact that she recognised Kelly’s clothing) I’m only left with Maxwell lying. But with no great level of confidence though.

good post herlock
yes ive often argued the burnt clothes and large fire is more indicative of a night time murder. it seems rather obvious that the killer burnt the clothes, for whatever reason, maybe more light or just out of spite.and it just seemsthe time frame for a daylight morning murder is too tight for a large fire to get stoked up to the point its burning clothes and tea kettles.

and yes maxwells story dosnt jibe. agree...mary is basically ill with alcohol poisoning yet shes out at a pub twice amd solicitating men for sex and bringing one back? dont see it. amd all this activity by mary and only maxwell sees her? dont think so.

[etenguy]

good post herlock
yes ive often argued the burnt clothes and large fire is more indicative of a night time murder. it seems rather obvious that the killer burnt the clothes, for whatever reason, maybe more light or just out of spite.and it just seemsthe time frame for a daylight morning murder is too tight for a large fire to get stoked up to the point its burning clothes and tea kettles.

and yes maxwells story dosnt jibe. agree...mary is basically ill with alcohol poisoning yet shes out at a pub twice amd solicitating men for sex and bringing one back? dont see it. amd all this activity by mary and only maxwell sees her? dont think so.

Hi Abby

It was not only Maxwell that saw MJK - Lewis did too, though I'm not sure how much faith I put in that sighting. The police though ignored him - did they ignore others also? We do not know.

I think the burnt clothes were Barnett's doing when he found Harvey at Miller's Court on his Thursday night visit. It seems the clothes Harvey left with MJK were burnt and MJK's clothes were neatly folded to one side.

I am not an advocate for Maxwell's story but I struggle to dismiss her - she tells a story of MJK's drinking the night before, she describes her clothes which Cox also describes and ties up with clothes found in MJK's room and both Abberline and Dew characterise her as reliable.

Her going out to earn money, even when not at her best, might have been driven by knowing she was due a visit for the arrears she owed. Either Thursday night if killed in the early hours, or Friday morning if killed later.

[etenguy]

I think that the clothes found in the fire place might give us a strong pointer as to whether Maxwell was right or wrong in her sighting of Mary. The burning of clothing seems unusual for someone as poor as Mary. Any surplus clothing would likely have been kept for pawning or selling (or even perhaps for repairing her existing clothing with patches etc) so I think that we can very reasonably suggest that the clothes were burned by the killer and, as there was only a small candle in the room, it was probably to provide light. This suggests the darkness of nighttime to me. That small room might have been poorly lit but I find it unlikely that Mary would have been stumbling about in the dark in daylight hours. There were two windows after all so light would probably have been required only in the evenings.

Hi Herlock

I agree with you that it is highly unlikely MJK, so far in arrears with her rent, would burn clothes she could pawn. I don't think there is a good reason for the murderer to do that either. I can't see the murderer want to draw attention to the room by stoking a large fire which might attract attention. It must have been quite a fire to melt the kettle spout. My thoughts are it may have been Barnett who burnt the clothes Harvey left in anger on finding her again with MJK when he visited Thursday night. We know Harvey caused arguments (broken window) and one of the reasons Barnett left.

Alternatively Kelly might have lit a fire when she entered the room with her killer. If that was the case then why would he have burned the clothes? Possibly he wanted to damp down the existing fire just before he left the room? He might even have used them to clean himself up first although he wouldn’t have needed to have burned them as a means of destroying evidence of course. A fire might have suggested to potential visitors that Kelly was at home leading to suspicion when she didn’t respond to the knocking. So perhaps this was simply a precaution on the killer’s part? Again this seems to point to the hours of darkness when the glow of a fire would have been most visible through the windows. Also, for someone who didn’t know where her next meal was coming from, the materials to light a fire might have been used sparingly so it’s worth asking if she would have bothered lighting a fire during the daylight hours when she was in and out (or mainly out?) I can imagine there being days when the fire never got lit at all. It’s a pity that the police didn’t enter straight away so that we could know about any remaining heat in the ashes so that they might have been able to gauge how long the fire had been burning to some extent.

All good reasoning and covers some good points - absolutely agree about the fire and heat. I still think Barnett a good bet, but if not, then cannot disagree with your logic about a night time fire.

On the Chapman murder the reasonable point was made about the perils of a TOD of around 5.30 with people milling around and the risks involved. So the point is even more valid in the case of Kelly. If Kelly was seen for a second time by Maxwell at around 8.45 then this would seem a huge risk if the killer had met her and gone back to her room after that hour. Would a man who knew that he’d been seen by numerous people have gone on to murder Kelly? It seems a little unlikely.

I don't think the murderer thought hard about the risk you highlight - with Stride it seems he was seen, Chapman was likely an early morning murder and he walked out into market bustling streets - I think he could do that again with MJK.

Questions worth asking in regard to Maxwell’s testimony are - doesn’t she seem a bit ‘familiar’ in their conversation considering that they had only previously spoken twice? - would a woman who had just thrown up her hair-of-the-dog have immediately headed back to the pub? - in that state, and after apparently having had the money for a beer, would she have been looking for a punter?

We have descriptions of others earning some money, spending it on drink, then having to find another punter - I don't find MJK doing something similar with a big debt hanging over her particularly unusual.

The level of familiarity in the conversation Maxwell relates does seem unusual for two people who have only spoken twice and that does cause some suspicion. I wonder why Abberline did not find that a little odd? Was it just the norm in that environment? I don't know, it strikes me as odd also.

I wouldn’t come down too firmly on either side on this issue but I tend slightly toward Kelly being dead before the Maxwell’s sighting and as it seems unlikely that Maxwell could have been mistaken in her identification (although I don’t place much significance in the fact that she recognised Kelly’s clothing) I’m only left with Maxwell lying. But with no great level of confidence though.

And here I agree with you, either Kelly was killed later than we first thought, or Maxwell was lying - I find no room for a mistake about either the date or the identity of MJK.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

Hi Eten,

I agree with you that it is highly unlikely MJK, so far in arrears with her rent, would burn clothes she could pawn. I don't think there is a good reason for the murderer to do that either. I can't see the murderer want to draw attention to the room by stoking a large fire which might attract attention. It must have been quite a fire to melt the kettle spout. My thoughts are it may have been Barnett who burnt the clothes Harvey left in anger on finding her again with MJK when he visited Thursday night. We know Harvey caused arguments (broken window) and one of the reasons Barnett left.

Kelly’s arrears is another one of those mysteries that we just can’t come close to solving. Why would McCarthy have allowed her to get so far behind (unless she’d found some way of placating him of course)

Barnett could have burned the clothing although Harvey didn’t report any acrimony at the time of her visit when he was present. Sherlock Holmes would have looked at the spout and told us when the fire was lit of course but we have little to go on. If Kelly had lit the fire earlier in the morning I’d have thought that she would have moved the kettle before she went out or at least when she’d got back to her room. If the killer or Kelly had lit a fire at around 9.00 then it would have been blazing by the time that Bowyer looked in. I don’t think that anyone (Bowyer, McCarthy, Phillips, Abberline) mention a fire but that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t one though of course.

All good reasoning and covers some good points - absolutely agree about the fire and heat. I still think Barnett a good bet, but if not, then cannot disagree with your logic about a night time fire.

I don't think the murderer thought hard about the risk you highlight - with Stride it seems he was seen, Chapman was likely an early morning murder and he walked out into market bustling streets - I think he could do that again with MJK.

It’s certainly possible but I just think that in those circumstances he might have been seen by a fair few people. I may be mis-remembering her Eten but wasn’t the landlord or landlady of The Britannia questioned and she couldn’t recall seeing Mary that morning?

We have descriptions of others earning some money, spending it on drink, then having to find another punter - I don't find MJK doing something similar with a big debt hanging over her particularly unusual.

The level of familiarity in the conversation Maxwell relates does seem unusual for two people who have only spoken twice and that does cause some suspicion. I wonder why Abberline did not find that a little odd? Was it just the norm in that environment? I don't know, it strikes me as odd also.

It’s difficult to assess the tone of a conversation though. It’s certainly possible that even after only speaking twice they had got to know each other’s names and had fallen into a friendly way of talking to each other. In those days people were less in their own bubble than we area. No faces glued to a mobile phone oblivious to their surroundings.

And here I agree with you, either Kelly was killed later than we first thought, or Maxwell was lying - I find no room for a mistake about either the date or the identity of MJK.

It’s always been a difficult and contentious point Eten. I wouldn’t put money on any conclusion. Mistaken identity doesn’t seem likely. A later TOD seems circumstantially less likely but not impossible (I recall Bill Beadle proposing this at a Cloak And Dagger club meeting talk 15 or 20 years ago) And we have no solid reason to accuse Maxwell of lying. I don’t favour the ‘Kelly discovers the body then takes the opportunity to flee’ theory though even though it’s not totally impossible.

[Parisi North Humber]

As there is discussion of the fire and kettle I'm just going to throw this out there and ask if anyone else finds the seemingly clean right femur at odds with the bloody mess of the left femur?

I also note the sodden bedding sheet between MKJK's legs. The sheets don't look wet from blood but do look sodden, it could be by urine or stomach contents (unlikely In my opinion) but what if hot water had been employed on parts of her body? Jacky boy may have been even more inquisitive than we have given him credit for.

I know that the above will probably be shot down in flames (excuse the pun lol) but I have always thought of the cleanly stripped (and dare I say it blanched looking) right femur as an anomaly in comparison to the other butchered and bloodied body parts.


Helen x