Would we have suspected Maxwell?

[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.

[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 donīt 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 theyīre 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 thatīs fine by me - although I donīt see much material in the suggestion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[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.

[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?

[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

[lynn cates]

insistence

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

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

veritas

Hello Diddles. Thanks.

That's all possible. However, there is yet another one. Perhaps she told the truth?

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Hi everyone,

I have a question I would like to ask your opinion about: If Caroline Maxwell had been a man would she have been suspected (like Hutchinson) by Ripper researchers?

Do we give more creedence to her story since she couldnt have been the Ripper (unless she was Jill the Ripper)?

Hi Dids,

Firstly, Hutchinson wasn't suspected. That means we have to compare him to modern thought about Maxwell. In that case, she seems to most to be unreliable, but not murderous. If we go back to 1888, I suppose she would have been thought to have been just a simple woman whose testimony was either wrong or she made up stuff. Either way, because she was a woman, I don't believe contemporary authorities would have suspected her of anything else.

Mike

[Diddles]

Lynn: I just find it strange that very few people see her testimony as being a lie, or hiding something. It is always "poor Maxwell" being confused of the day, or the person she spoke with. Had she been a man there probably would have been more theories.

Generally we tend to be biased (I am at least) in what the gender of the person giving the testimony is. Therefore I wondered if Maxwell would have been suspected had she been a man.

What her reason for lying would be, is beyond me Cause confusion? Screw up the time-line? Maybe she didn't know that doctors could determine the approx. time of death..

[lynn cates]

under the suspicions

Hello Diddles. Thanks.

But would not her testimony be more suspicious with "MJK" alive, if only because it draws attention to herself?

Cheers.
LC

[Diddles]

Hi Lynn,

I suppose Maxwell would be accused of lying about meeting Kelly that morning. And had she been a man, would have gotten the Hutchinson-treatment. Liar=killer, or something to that effect.

[lynn cates]

testimony

Hello Diddles. That's an interesting question.

What, specifically, in her testimony would cause suspicion?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Thank you for the reply!

I tend to agree with you, Fisherman, in that women were taken less seriously back in the day. But nowadays, on looking back, it is usually the men who get the 'suspicious character' treatment, and more often disbelieved, like Hutchinson, Cross and even Richardson with his boot.

Given the statistics of who kills and who does not, itīs small wonder, Iīd say!

The best,
Fisherman

[Diddles]

Thank you for the reply!

I tend to agree with you, Fisherman, in that women were taken less seriously back in the day. But nowadays, on looking back, it is usually the men who get the 'suspicious character' treatment, and more often disbelieved, like Hutchinson, Cross and even Richardson with his boot.

[Fisherman]

Di
Well, I asked the question more on the grounds of her gender.

Point taken - and of course you are correct, generally speaking. The chances that the Whitechapel killer was a woman are anorectically small. But the world of ripperology is a truly whacky one, and in it, nothing is impossible.

On your point of whether Astrakhan man would have stood a better chance of being believed in if Hutchinson was a woman, Iīd personally say no - the many tales told by the women of Millerīs court regarding the "Murder" outcry vouches for this.

In a sense, though, one has to weigh in the time perspective. In 1888, I think female witnesses were regarded as less credible witnesses than men, representing the "weaker gender", as they were. Now, donīt come crashing down on me for this view - I ascribe it to the time, not to myself. In times and cultures gone by, women were sometimes not even allowed to witness!

All the best,
Fisherman