Would we have suspected Maxwell?

[lynn cates]

Here you go.

Hello Richard. Thanks.

You spoke of those who HAD lived at #14 Dorset. Very well. Probably less than useful, but here is #14 from 1881.

Cheers.
LC

14 Dorset Cohen Isaac 36 head England finisher
14 Dorset Cohen Becky 36 wife England (NA)
14 Dorset Cohen Rachael 17 daughter England boot finisher
14 Dorset Cohen Abraham 5 son England (NA)
14 Dorset Milmsky Mary 37 head England tailoress
14 Dorset Milmsky John 18 son England tailor
14 Dorset Milmsky Jonah 14 son England school
14 Dorset Milmsky Sarah 10 daughter England school
14 Dorset Rogers Isaac A 40 head London cab driver
14 Dorset Rogers Mary 38 wife London (NA)
14 Dorset Rogers Priscilla 17 daughter London NK
14 Dorset Rogers Leah 16 daughter London NK
14 Dorset Rogers Rebecca 14 daughter London (NA)
14 Dorset Rogers Hannah 12 daughter London (NA)
14 Dorset Rogers Betsy 11 daughter London (NA)
14 Dorset Rogers Fanny 10 daughter London (NA)
14 Dorset Rogers Juliet 4 daughter London (NA)
14 Dorset Rogers Sarah 3 daughter London (NA)
14 Dorset Rogers Jessie 2 daughter London (NA)
14 Dorset Rogers Clara 6m daughter London (NA)
14 Dorset Rogers Mary A 15 sister (NA) (NA)
14 Dorset Leach Alfred 48 head Essex staioner (sic)
14 Dorset Leach Eliza 38 wife London (NA)
14 Dorset Leach Alfred 16 son London apprentice
14 Dorset Leach Frederick 11 son London school
14 Dorset Milmsky Miriam 30 (NA) London button hole maker
14 Dorset Milmsky Abraham 10 (NA) London school
14 Dorset Milmsky Arnier 6 (NA) London school
14 Dorset Milmsky Layurus 4 (NA) London school
14 Dorset Milmsky Samuel 2 (NA) London (NA)
14 Dorset Milton Richard 40 head London warehouse unemployed
14 Dorset Milton Emily 38 wife London warehouse unemployed
14 Dorset Deering Frederick 26 lodger London tinman unemployed

[lynn cates]

loan

Hello Edward.

"And I think he almost certainly was Toppy."

Hope Christer is willing to loan that pith helmet. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi Lynn,
I was suggesting [ tongue-in-cheek] that the reason she may have stated she saw Kelly in daylight hours, would be to give someone she knew a alibi.
If the person she suspected had a watertight alibi for that period , which was not evident during the night.
I realize that this is far fetched, but it does seem rather odd that a letter was penned 14, Dorset street, and sent exactly one week prior to the murder, that location being directly opposite , its almost yells out to us, that someone responsible had either a past connection to that property,or resided in it, and had a knowledge of who his next victim was to be.
And who should live there , none other then one of the most talked about witnesses in the whole of the case, and one whose evidence was in complete contrast to the medical reports.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

I don’t know why there is this accusation that ‘Ripperology’ is collapsing in on itself because the actions and antecedents of various people involved in the case are being looked at anew to see if any could or should be viewed with suspicion.

I don’t favour Hutchinson’s candidacy because I think he was closely looked at by the police, he lived in a building that had a curfew, he went too far in giving press interviews an making himself known as being involved in the case (were he going under a false ID) and I don’t think he was Lewis’s wide-awake man. And I think he almost certainly was Toppy.
But having said all that he is a better candidate than most and a valid person to make a suspect and discuss.

I don’t find any merit in Cadosch’s suspect status (which has been tentatively proposed) or Richardson’s but it is sensible that they should be vigorously looked at with fresh eyes.

It is often said that the eventual culprit, if ever discovered, would probably have been found to have been involved in the case. That is because that is the way these things tend to go down in the real world.
Also it is a more sensible starting point to look at people named in the case as having actually been there, rather than say a random person who we do not know was anywhere near and of the crime scenes, but who may have been a killer for example (or an artist or poet).

The police in their investigation were hindered by two things that we are not.
Firstly a greater understanding (admittedly largely absent on these boards) of what type of person might become a serial killer.
Secondly much greater knowledge of who lived where and when and their family backgrounds – due to computerised records.
This allows us to look at certain people involved in the case – not all – with a fresh set of eyes.
I would personally not give that much credence to a suspect who was effectively cleared at the time as the police were not total dummies.

Regarding Mrs Maxwell, if she were a man then yes I would guess we would be looking at her now in a more quizative manner. Would the police then? Probably not if ‘he’ was respectable.
In a case such as this it is inevitable that the potential suspect status of men and women are regarded differently. And that has nothing to do with women being the ‘fairer’ sex.
As for the timing of Maxwell’s sighting – as others have sad we cannot really be sure about Kelly’s time of death and there is a chance that she was accurate in her statement.

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer.

"But the fact of the matter is that the police never solved the Ripper case, and such a thing will potentially be due to their not having asked the right man the right question. And if pointing to this is to collapse Ripperology, then let it collapse, I say - the sooner, the better."

Get your pith helmet, boy.

Cheers.
LC

Think a thick skullbone will safeguard me, Lynn - but thanks anyway.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Why?

Hello Richard.

"the only reason I can suggest that she would ''invent'' a sighting would be to an attempt to mislead the police about actual time of death."

But why do that? What about, "Mary? Haven't seen her in a couple days."?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dogged pursuit

Hello Diddles. Well, one might try Barnaby or Burgho.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

impeccable

Hello Richard. Your trifurcation is impeccable.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

pith helmet

Hello Christer.

"But the fact of the matter is that the police never solved the Ripper case, and such a thing will potentially be due to their not having asked the right man the right question. And if pointing to this is to collapse Ripperology, then let it collapse, I say - the sooner, the better."

Get your pith helmet, boy.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Mrs. Prater

Hello Damaso.

"Who's the next witness to be accused?"

What of Mrs. Prater? She was close enough.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

master the possibilities

Hello Michael. Thanks.

Fair enough. You at least see the possibilities.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sally.
As you say it is unfortunate we do not know more about Mrs Maxwell,the only reason I can suggest that she would ''invent'' a sighting would be to an attempt to mislead the police about actual time of death.
That would suggest that she was either protecting someone close to her, or even herself..
It would appear that to pen her own address , and send it to another police force would be some desperate attempt to draw attention to that address, maybe rather reluctantly ...being out of area.
It could be to attempt to halt someones future plans that she suspected as being the killer, to give them second thoughts in continuing , or wrestling with her own emotions.
Maybe her own husband, who was very handily placed for a murder in Millers court.
This is all Tales of Mystery speculation, but that 14, Dorset street letter will not go away from my calculations ..as yet.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Diddles,
It is a worthwhile thread, as when one looks upon murders of the serial type, one looks for usually male suspects, its almost as if we cannot comprehend such a deed being committed by the fairer sex..
Regarding the username we all know that Diddles was the name of Elizabeth Prater's cat, also in Casebook history it was used by poster Suzi, up to a few years ago , in the form of a puppet she created, which became a trademark of hers for ages, complete with T shirts Etc.
Best wishes
Richard.

[Diddles]

This is a very clever thread by a user with an excellent screename.

As I read it, he isn't so much pointing a finger at Maxwell, as he is critiquing the trend in Ripperology of making a suspect out of any witness who either behaves strangely or has something in their past. Lechmere, Richardson, Hutchinson, even George Morris, all of them have been turned into suspects by those of us who are alive today. It's as if Ripperology is collapsing into itself.

Who's the next witness to be accused? Cadosch? Diemshitz?

You are right in that I don't believe that Maxwell had anything to do with the murders. The original reason for the post is to maybe try to disregard the gender when we are looking at suspects. Or even try to flip it around, to see how we would have reacted to certain statements had he been a she.

Regarding my username: I've had it for a while, but I'm a bit of a lurker. Hopefully nobody has used it before (damn, I knew I should have gone with Buki). If there are any other Ripper related animal names, that would be an interesting thread

[Sally]

Hi Richard,

A mistake is unintentional by default - and there is some support for the idea that Maxwell mistook Kelly for Lizzie Albrook, as you suggest.

That said, I do think the 14 Dorset Street letter is interesting, as I've mentioned before. Could Maxwell have been lying? Yes, of course she could, but as you say, we would need a motive for her - and we would also need to explain the other alleged sighting of Kelly by Morris Luwitz on the same morning.

It's a tricky one. I don't think we know much about Maxwell, do we? It would help if we knew more - as it is, our lack of knowledge can only fuel suspicion...