The last witness

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bob,

At least Maurice Lewis got Billingsgate right, but I'm happy to concede the point.

I always thought subpoenas or summonses were part of the process in getting witnesses to attend inquests. For instance, in Lloyds Weekly News, 30 September, the following appeared—

"There is great indignation at the East-end over the shabby treatment of witnesses. On their summonses was printed in red letters across the subpoena:

N.B. - Bring this summons with you. All fees and expenses are required by the Act of Vic., cap. 68. sec. 1, to be advanced and paid by the coroner immediately after the termination of the inquest to such witnesses as the coroner may think fit to allow."

Regards,

Simon

[Bob Hinton]

Maxwell

Dear Simon,

With Maurice Lewis we again have the real possibility that he was confusing MJK with someone else. For example he stated that MJK was drinking with a man called:

‘Dan, a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields market, with whom she lived up to as recently as a fortnight ago’.

Well we know that is factually incorrect, so how much reliance can we put on him as a witness?

I don’t think Maxwell was subpoenaed to attend, I think she attended because she had previously given a statement to police.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bob,

Your Maxwell analysis makes perfect sense, although if memory serves me correctly Kelly was allegedly seen in The Britannia that morning by Maurice Lewis.

Maxwell made her initial witness statement on Friday 9th. The police must have suspected then that she was mistaken, so the $64,000 question for me is why Maxwell was subpoenaed to appear as an inquest witness on Monday 12th.

Regards,

Simon

[Bob Hinton]

Maxwell - Points Against

And she did know MJK,

Actually she didn’t know MJK. I think she admitted at the inquest that she had spoken to her twice in the previous six months. It is very easy to get the wrong person fixed in your mind. First of all let us look at the type of situation we are in when we talk of Dorset Street at the time of the murders.

It is very crowded with thousands of people coming and going on a daily basis. A lot of these people are transient in nature, staying for a few days and then moving on. Firm friendships of the type we think about today were much rarer, sure you got to see people at the pub, but really getting to know someone was uncommon.

So how could Maxwell make a mistake like this? Very easily. Let us say there are three women walking down the street. You recognise one as MJK and call out to her. Turning to Maxwell you say ‘Oh that was Mary Kelly’. Now it is very possible that she might fix her attention on another of the women. It doesn’t matter – in her mind she now knows who Mary Kelly is.

Something similar happened to me. Going to my car one morning I noticed a hearse drawn up outside one of the houses down the street. My wife later told me that Mrs Davies who ran the corner shop had died. Imagine my surprise when some time later I saw a ghost walking down the street. What had happened was I had got the shops confused. The person I thought was Mrs Davies actually ran another corner shop. We were talking about two different people but each believing they were correct.

The biggest drawback to Maxwell being correct is the other witnesses. What other witnesses? That’s right there aren’t any. You see for Maxwell to be correct the following would have to happen.

MJK leaves Millers Court at a busy time of the morning with no-one seeing her.

She goes to the Britannia pub and no-one sees her.

She buys a drink and no-one sees her.

She leaves the pub and walks back to Millers Court and no-one sees her.

She stands outside Millers Court talking to Maxwell, throws up in the gutter and again no-one except Maxwell sees her.

She returns to her room to await her fate and no-one see her.

Now don’t you think that if that did happen somebody would have seen her? What about the customers in the pub? What about the person who served her the drink? What about the people standing next to her? It is physically impossible for all that to happen and no-one sees her.

[Brenda]

Has anybody ever looked for any kind of police records for Caroline Maxwell before? It would be interesting to see if she ever had any kind of history of "dishonesty." It wouldn't prove a thing, of course, but it would be interesting.

[paul emmett]

Hi all,

I tend to think Maxwell was right. Of course, she could have been lying, mistaken about day/person or delusional.

Five choices: right, lying, wrong day, wrong person, delusional. I'd like to take away wrong day. It all happened on Lord Mayor's Day, and Maxwell spoke up right away, right? She couldn't have gotten the wrong day, and IF she did, it all collapses into delusional. She didn't sound delusional, and there doesn't seem to be sufficient reason to lie at the Inquest. And she did know MJK, noting what seem like the same clothes Cox noted from the night before.

So I too go for right. But if Maxwell is right, then the Doctors and the time line, and the digested fish all take me to the body in the bed.

[sdreid]

Hi all,

I tend to think Maxwell was right. Of course, she could have been lying, mistaken about day/person or delusional. The estimated time of death is really the only thing that argues against her account and that is an inexact science.

When they have a nice tidy story, police sometimes frown when someone comes along and spoils it.

[Bob Hinton]

Here We Go Again!

Sorry Richard but once again you are making statements and asking us to accept them as fact because it fits with your theory.

witness that claimed to have seen Mjk alive has to be taken seriously.
We all know that Caroline Maxwell was that person

No we don’t. In fact all the evidence points towards Maxwell being in error when she states she saw Kelly that morning.

had her account verified by investigation,

No it wasn’t. The only part of her statement that was verified was the part about running an errand – nothing as regards to her supposed sighting of Kelly was verified.

the woman we know as Kelly, alias Davies

No she wasn’t. She was known as Mary Kelly, there is absolutely nothing to show that she ever used the alias ‘Davies’.

I would suggest that the man last seen with the woman we know as Kelly, alias Davies, was her most likely killer

Rubbish. The vast majority of murders occur with no witnesses; therefore the chances are the person last seen with a victim is not a killer.

then the market porter in plaid was most likely to have been the 'Whitechapel murderer'.

Nonsense. What do you base this on? There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Maxwell’s statement is accurate; there are plenty of indications to show it wasn’t.

I Must abide to this belief, dispite medical reports that differ.

And herein lies your problem, despite all the indications that something is inaccurate you insist on clinging to it just because it fits in with your theory. If you want to us to take you seriously then find something, anything that backs up your version.

[richardnunweek]

Hello all,
Its about time I started a new thread, so here goes.
If one takes on board all the newspaper reports recorded during the Whitechapel murders obviously many possible scenerios can be created, however where the Millers court murder is concerned surely the last witness that claimed to have seen Mjk alive has to be taken seriously.
We all know that Caroline Maxwell was that person, and she not only gave a full statement to the police on the 9th November, but had her account verified by investigation, not only that, was called to the inquest, dispite her [alleged] sightings, going against the police doctors opinions.
I in all my forty odd years of 'Ripper intrest' have never had cause to doubt this witness, therefore I would suggest that the man last seen with the woman we know as Kelly, alias Davies, was her most likely killer, and as no one can surely doubt he was a homicidial maniac, and most likely our 'Jack', then the market porter in plaid was most likely to have been the 'Whitechapel murderer'.
I Must abide to this belief, dispite medical reports that differ.
Regards Richard.