The last witness

[perrymason]

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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[perrymason]

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.

[Ben]

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

Adamant?

Wow. Must have missed that nuance.

[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

[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.

[richardnunweek]

Simon,
You summed it up my friend , there is no way Caroline Maxwell would have been called to the inquest, to possibly alter police doctors opinions, if it was a load of Bull....
Look at her statement , it was positive, and it was relayed to the top man , ie, Abberline, and are we seriously suggesting that the most important witnesses, convinced him,, when according to many of us they were a couple of oddballs?.
To sum up guys, we simply have to accept , even if it goes against the majority, that the two witnesses debated, are crucial, to the understanding of the Millers court Murder.
Regards Richard

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
My Hutchinson tones greatly favour honesty, rather then the negative, and as you proberly are well aware of ,I serve in the camp of Gh , being the father of Reg, and therefore [ in my opinion] was simply relaying a sighting , that he was initially reluctant to relay to the police until the monday evening,
I have mentioned many times, that I dismiss ,that Hutchy was a timewaster. and am one of the few that actually honour the man for his morals.
Regards Richard.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your post.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're bundling in GH as a truth-teller.

Sorry, but that's where you and I begin to disagree.

Regards,

Simon

[perrymason]

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

Im sure that it matters to you Simon.

I do think summoned is a bit strong though, how could they eliminate her testimony if she stated she saw the murder victim the morning of her death? They could only preface her statement with a codicil....in essence, "Jurors, you may believe Mrs Maxwell at your own peril, for her story opposes other statements including Dr Bonds medical findings.

Lets just get this out once and for all, shall we?......If Maxwell did see Mary Kelly alive the morning of November 9th, then she wasnt the body in bed in Room 13 at 1:30pm on November the 9th. Its the only reasonable explanation if she was accurate....and Im loathe to even consider after all Ive read, that it wasnt Mary in that bed.

If it was Mary in the bed, the corpse itself calls Maxwell a liar. The medical evidence regarding her last meal alone is clear. It tells us that her death occurred before Mrs Maxwells statement of her meeting...and it contradicts an account of a woman who vomited a few times that same morning.

Best regards Simon, all.

[Suzi]

Hi all-
Yes but just HOW WELL did Caroline Maxwell know Mary?? Sometimes in communities like Dorset St...'knowing well' would have counted as saying hello or maybe tripping over eachother or passing in the street or meeting in a shop/pub etc on occasion..In such a 'close' community I'm sure that everyone 'knew' everyone....some more than like in a 'biblical' sense!!!

I'm sure that this 'knowledge' extended far beyond Dorset St too into Flower and Dean ,Thrawl etc as they obviously all used the common thoroughfares and most certainly common 'watering holes'
Suzi x

[Tom_Wescott]

According to Mrs. Maxwell, she'd only spoken to Mary a couple of times and didn't know her too well. However, she'd probably seen her dozens of times, and that's a factor that should have been explored more at the inquest...and would have been had Phillips been running the show.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott