The last witness

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gatsby,

Here is my problem: We can't complain about Lawende's typical eyewitness account, but we are going complain about an account that involves two women that knew each other having a conversation?

The problem lies not so much with the action of one woman talking to another whom she (vaguely) knew - it's how her account stacks up against the medical evidence, etc. Precisely the same scrutiny should be applied to any witness testimony - which should stand and fall on its own merits. In this respect, many - myself included - find Maxwell's evidence rather less than compelling.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Not that it matters, but I'm firmly in the "Mrs Maxwell was telling the truth" camp.

She wasn't summoned to appear at the inquest just to throw a spanner in the works. The police would never have allowed that to happen. Her testimony served a purpose. What we have to do is work out the nature of that purpose.

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

and it was his adamant belief that his statement was true.

Adamant?

Wow. Must have missed that nuance.

Just wanted to add before taking a stroll on the beach...its almost "summery" here today...I very much enjoy the recent tone here on this thread, talking about contentious issues but allowing each side to be heard without insults.

Sam, Gatsby, Richard.....Ill skip a stone for ya.

Cheers.

[Gatsby]

Hi Gatsby,Giving a vague description of an anonymous man is slightly different from the Maxwell scenario, in that Maxwell was ostensibly relating a story of a reasonably lengthy encounter whilst simultaneously identifying the woman she saw. For the comparison to be strictly valid, a witness who reported seeing a potential "Ripper" would have to have named him too.

For example, if Lawende said that the man he saw was "Jacob Isaacs, with whom I've spoken twice in the past year", and we'd be in a better position to judge Maxwell's evidence against his. As things stand, Lawende gave an almost typical eyewitness account, about which we can't really complain.

I understand that. Here is my problem: We can't complain about Lawende's typical eyewitness account, but we are going complain about an account that involves two women that knew each other having a conversation?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Michael,
Must go against you on the two vital points.
I believe Mrs Maxwell told the whole truth, she was questioned by Abberline, who found her statement so perplexing , he had her attend the inquest.
I also believe George Hutchinson, who again was questioned by Abberline, and it was his adamant belief that his statement was true.
whilst I believe these two told the truth, I believe we have not quite apprehended what exactly occured on the eve of the 8th, and the morning of the 9th, hopefully one day we will...
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gatsby,

I find it funny that so many people discount Maxwell's eyewitness account by saying she had only met MJK twice... But then these same people treat eyewitness testimony from other people who supposedly saw JTR as gospel.

Giving a vague description of an anonymous man is slightly different from the Maxwell scenario, in that Maxwell was ostensibly relating a story of a reasonably lengthy encounter whilst simultaneously identifying the woman she saw. For the comparison to be strictly valid, a witness who reported seeing a potential "Ripper" would have to have named him too.

For example, if Lawende said that the man he saw was "Jacob Isaacs, with whom I've spoken twice in the past year", and we'd be in a better position to judge Maxwell's evidence against his. As things stand, Lawende gave an almost typical eyewitness account, about which we can't really complain.

[Gatsby]

Hi Michael,

I respect your opinion as well, and concede that you may very well be right, I just don't agree with you at this time.

I dont happen to agree with many of your assumptions Gatsby....but I do agree you have your right to them.

To Say Carrie Maxwell was the most reliable witness we have here is tantamount to blasphemy, and as far from accurate a statement as can be. The most important reliable witnesses were the ones that saw Mary Kelly that night, or lived or stayed in that courtyard and had occasion to notice Marys room or sounds. You may disagree...but the police did'nt when issuing Blotchy Man as the suspect late November 15th...nor did the Coroner when reminding Mrs Maxwell that what she was about to say flew in the face of witness testimony, and medical evidence.

Again, I don't dispute that other witness accounts of the event are important. I am merely pointing out that discounting Maxwell's testimony and then turning around and pointing to another eyewitness account as proof comes across as more than a little confusing.

I view the Maxwell account as the most reliable because she stuck to her guns in a court of law when everyone else in the room told her she was wrong. Also, she knew MJK and had a brief conversation with her. It is not as if the woman said she saw MJK from the back walking out of the courtyard at night.

The body temperature was but one gauge, as was the state of rigor, and despite the fact that she was taken apart, the room temperature may have lessened the rate of cooling. The best medical evidence is the stomach contents. They do not lie. I suggest you familiarize yourself with those details. They are finite,..not guesses. Digestion and body absorption are measurable, and were then. The body in room 13 was dead before Mrs Maxwell had her morning chat.

The body in room 13 may very well have been dead before the morning chat, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether the chat occured or not. Someone's body was in room 13, and they had eaten fish; nothing there that contradicts Maxwell's account.

To defend Carrie, and George's Astrakan Man you must realize that you counter every professional opinion at that time.George was a godsend at first. That was his moment of sun. He placed Astrakan Man as the key suspect for almost as long as he waited to come forward at all.

I am speaking only about Maxwell's testimony at this time. If it counters every professional opinion at the time, so be it. None of the professional opinions at the time solved the case - maybe because they thought Maxwell was lying or mistaken.

Frankly, I do agree with you that many people buy opinions of the times as if they were gospel, and not always wisely, but you cannot argue well against scientific data either.

I think whats a missing equation here is the aptitude of the individual, by training, study, application....the ability to weigh arguments, know something of people and life, and make a decision about what makes sense to them. Its not science, its logic,..looking for rational, linear events and scenarios.

And both science, and logic, say Carrie Maxwell erred or lied, and logic alone says that George Hutchinson never saw a man with a Horseshoe pin.

Im not attempting a run for superiority here...just trying to keep the balance.

Best regards.

I view almost everything about the JTR case as a problem of logic. There is little reliable scientific evidence to go on, and what there is can be made or bent to fit almost any theory we can come up with.

I don't know who JTR was, and I probably never will, but I would like to see some new ideas and insights explored if possible.

I dont happen to agree with many of your assumptions Gatsby....but I do agree you have your right to them.

To Say Carrie Maxwell was the most reliable witness we have here is tantamount to blasphemy, and as far from accurate a statement as can be. The most important reliable witnesses were the ones that saw Mary Kelly that night, or lived or stayed in that courtyard and had occasion to notice Marys room or sounds. You may disagree...but the police did'nt when issuing Blotchy Man as the suspect late November 15th...nor did the Coroner when reminding Mrs Maxwell that what she was about to say flew in the face of witness testimony, and medical evidence.

The body temperature was but one gauge, as was the state of rigor, and despite the fact that she was taken apart, the room temperature may have lessened the rate of cooling. The best medical evidence is the stomach contents. They do not lie. I suggest you familiarize yourself with those details. They are finite,..not guesses. Digestion and body absorption are measurable, and were then. The body in room 13 was dead before Mrs Maxwell had her morning chat.

To defend Carrie, and George's Astrakan Man you must realize that you counter every professional opinion at that time.George was a godsend at first. That was his moment of sun. He placed Astrakan Man as the key suspect for almost as long as he waited to come forward at all.

Frankly, I do agree with you that many people buy opinions of the times as if they were gospel, and not always wisely, but you cannot argue well against scientific data either.

I think whats a missing equation here is the aptitude of the individual, by training, study, application....the ability to weigh arguments, know something of people and life, and make a decision about what makes sense to them. Its not science, its logic,..looking for rational, linear events and scenarios.

And both science, and logic, say Carrie Maxwell erred or lied, and logic alone says that George Hutchinson never saw a man with a Horseshoe pin.

Im not attempting a run for superiority here...just trying to keep the balance.

Best regards.

[Gatsby]

Hi Gatsby,
I also found your post intresting, albeit I am bias.
I agree entirely that Mrs Maxwells evidence is extremely important, because of that two points should be raised.
A] If Mjk was seen on two occassions that morning at 815am, and 845 am , does that mean she was killed at some point after, even If many suggest it was unlikely, because of time allowed.?
B] If Mjk was seen on two occassions that morning at 815am. and 845am, does that mean she was not the victim at millers court?
The answer has to be one or the other...
Regards Richard.

Those are indeed the two conclusions one would have to come to. I don't lean one way or the other.

One thing that does occur to me though is that if one of the docs used temperature to determine time of death, wouldn't a body cool much faster if say: the majority of it was in pieces, and there was a gaping hole in the middle of it where all the organs used to be? I don't know, but I would be curious to find out.

[brummie]

While I find it hard to believe that MJK was seen by Maxwell at that time we have to at least consider the possibility because of the inexact nature of the methods used to determine time of death at that time. Add into the complication of the heat from the fire affecting timingsand it involves basically a lot of guesswork. The two doctors involved could not agree on a time so which should we believe,lets not forget there were similar problems with establishing the time of death for Chapman also. One point to consider if we assume Maxwell's sighting is correct then surely that makes the theory of another woman's body being used to enable MJK to start a new life implausible, would you hope to slip away from the scene by nipping round to the local pub for a drink in full view. As i say i think the official timing is still the most likely but Maxwell cant be dismissed lightly after all i'm sure between the statement and the inquest police would have tried to shake her timings but she remained conviced enough to repeat the story under oath.

[Chava]

Of those two possibilities I think the answer would most probably be (B) given the amount of damage that was done to that body.

But then I'm someone who believes Maxwell was mistaken...

[richardnunweek]

Hi Gatsby,
I also found your post intresting, albeit I am bias.
I agree entirely that Mrs Maxwells evidence is extremely important, because of that two points should be raised.
A] If Mjk was seen on two occassions that morning at 815am, and 845 am , does that mean she was killed at some point after, even If many suggest it was unlikely, because of time allowed.?
B] If Mjk was seen on two occassions that morning at 815am. and 845am, does that mean she was not the victim at millers court?
The answer has to be one or the other...
Regards Richard.

[Bob Hinton]

Maxwell

I won't be posting any more on this subject here, but instead will be writing an article for Ripperologist on Maxwell.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Gatsby,

An excellent post. It's about time we got over a few fundamental assumptions about this case.

Well done. Look forward to more from you.

Regards,

Simon