Would we have suspected Maxwell?

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael. Does her insistence at inquest, in spite of being cautioned, mean anything?

It might have meant many different things. Her insistence may have meant that she was an attention-seeker not easily dismissed. It maybe have meant that in spite of a preponderance of contrary information, she was sticking to her story because she was nuts. I really don't know. In my mind it was still possible that Kelly was alive around the time Maxwell says she saw her. We know now that the time of death consideration didn't account for all the variables that we can speculate on. It seems that there was a bit of a rush job on Kelly medically speaking, for a woman who had had so much done to her. That could have come into play when reckoning time of death. Yet, that's not for this thread.

Cheers,

Mike

[Damaso Marte]

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?

[Wickerman]

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

Actually, the screen-name is a touch of Deja-vu, for some of us.

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?

Someone included Macnaghten years ago.

[Fisherman]

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?

If you don´t mind, Damaso, I would like to point out that strange behaviour and having "something" in the past, is exactly what has any useful policeforce taking an active interest in people, no matter if they´re witnesses or not. I fail to see why it would be wrong to look with interest on such people, since strange behaviour and a sordid past of some sort are often excellent indicators that something is wrong.

Of course, if we want our Ripperology untouched by new notions and finds, then yes, we may need to close our eyes and ears and mumble whatever mantra, approved by traditional Ripperology, we choose to cling to.

But the fact of the matter is that the police never solved the Ripper case, and such a thing will potentially be due to them 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.

Cadosche, by the way, HAS already been hinted at as a possible Ripper. And that´s fine by me - although I don´t see much material in the suggestion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
In the case of Mrs Maxwell we have to ask ourselves the question.
Was she lying/mistaken, telling the truth?
All three are possible.
If she was lying , we have to ask why?, was it as a desire to be in the limelight, which resulted in her been interviewed by the police, and consequently having to swear under oath at the inquest, or was there another interior motive.
If she was mistaken, it was most likely not intentional, and she may have mistook Kelly for young Lizzie Albrook, who worked in a lodging house in Dorset street.[ Note Maxwell' reference to being ''about in the lodging house'']
If she was telling the truth, then the likelihood of the medical reports of T.O.D, being inaccurate. come into play...[which we all know is possible in this case]
It is just possible that the letter penned from 14, Dorset Street to the Norfolk police one week prior to the murder may just be significant, as it was sent from the very address that Maxwell Resided., which was situated right opposite Millers court.
The Ripper case is full of coincidences , however it would have been a staggering guess that any hoaxer , should invent an address just a few feet from the next bloodbath ..don't you agree?.the area which the killer operated was large enough to suggest that it was possibly more then an educated guess.
So I must pose the question..
Was there more to Maxwell's alleged sighting then meets the eye, was she in anyway connected to that apparent hoax letter, was her statement a risky ploy to confuse time of death?
Was she trying to protect someone, who she believed responsible?
This is food for fueling many a conspiracy theory..is it not?
Regards Richard.

[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...

[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

[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.

[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.

[lynn cates]

master the possibilities

Hello Michael. Thanks.

Fair enough. You at least see the possibilities.

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]

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]

impeccable

Hello Richard. Your trifurcation is impeccable.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dogged pursuit

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

Cheers.
LC

[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