Was She Wrong?

[c.d.]

Hello George,

Yes, she might not have been mistaken. The point I was trying to make was that her being adamant has nothing to do with the accuracy of her story. It's possible that the woman she spoke to was simply not Mary or that the event had occurred perhaps the previous day and she got confused. As for the clothes, Mary was poor so I doubt she had many different outfits. So if a matching outfit was found in Mary's room I don't think that would be any sort of smoking gun just the odds.

We also have the cries of "Oh, murder" late at night and the doctors' estimate of the time of her death. I also believe that this was most definitely a Ripper murder. So her estimate of the time she saw Mary would be a huge deviation from his standard M.O.

c.d.

[GBinOz]

I would not question your assertion that the police were not stupid, but Abberline questioned Maxwell and stated that he could not break her story and that he felt she was a person of integrity. She held to her story in the face of opposition from the coroner.

But that only tells us that she herself believed her story. It does not necessarily mean that she was correct. Despite her best recollection and integrity she still simply could have been mistaken.

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

About which aspect could she have been mistaken. She spoke to Abberline only hours after the event, the time of the event being confirmed by the milk vendor. She knew Mary on a first name basis and described the clothes Mary was wearing which were later found in Mary's room. I'm not quite seeing where she was mistaken in her recollection.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

I could, I don't know of a procedure to add contributions anymore since Viper (Adrian) passed away.
Ironically, it would likely be listed among Official Documents, it doesn't really fit anywhere else.

[c.d.]

I would not question your assertion that the police were not stupid, but Abberline questioned Maxwell and stated that he could not break her story and that he felt she was a person of integrity. She held to her story in the face of opposition from the coroner.

But that only tells us that she herself believed her story. It does not necessarily mean that she was correct. Despite her best recollection and integrity she still simply could have been mistaken.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Mike, yes, it is only natural to assume the court record should include everything said at the inquest, but the reality is not the case.
The above caveats equally apply to the Eddowes case, it was also recorded in longhand.
A number of years ago I had a long conversation with the person responsible for the London Metropolitan Archives he may have been the curator, but he had a wealth of knowledge on these archived inquest records and the procedures back in the 19th century, I learned a great deal from him.
I had intended to give the Eddowes inquest the same treatment, I just never got around to finishing it.

It’s certainly a time consuming undertaking Wick but the one that you did is a great time saving resource for others. Couldn’t you post it on her too?

[Wickerman]

Thanks Mike, yes, it is only natural to assume the court record should include everything said at the inquest, but the reality is not the case.
The above caveats equally apply to the Eddowes case, it was also recorded in longhand.
A number of years ago I had a long conversation with the person responsible for the London Metropolitan Archives he may have been the curator, but he had a wealth of knowledge on these archived inquest records and the procedures back in the 19th century, I learned a great deal from him.
I had intended to give the Eddowes inquest the same treatment, I just never got around to finishing it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Mike.
The comparison of sources demonstrates how limited the Court record was. Some prefer to think of it as the official record, but that is a misnomer as the record is not complete, and the purpose for the record is not for a historical reasons.
It should be noted the court record does not include questions put to the witness, unlike some press versions. Also, the court recorder, likely Hodgkinson, did not know shorthand, unlike the crime reporter from the newspapers who were required to know shorthand as part of their job. Which means his account was kept short, sometimes in summary, in order to not miss anything of significance.
Consequently, the court record is brief and lacks detail.
There is a distinct difference between what the court requires to be recorded for legal purposes and what the newspaper requires to make the account interesting to their readers.
Then, there is the varying degrees of editing by the newspapers in order to fit available space in their columns.

In summary then, there are three distinct reasons to keep in mind why we see differences between the court record and the press.
1 - the comparison between longhand, and shorthand accounts.
2 - what is required for legal purposes, as opposed to the interest of the public.
3 - the varying degrees of editing by individual newspapers.

When students of the case are prone to criticize one source over the other, it is necessary to take the above three reasons into account.

Only the Central Criminal Court, aka Old Bailey, was known to record court transcripts in shorthand, local inquests rarely if ever had the means to employ a recorder with knowledge of shorthand.

Absolutely Wick. I’ve certainly been at fault in the past for assuming it should be ‘official version’ over newspaper reports. Until, that is, I’ve seen you mention that we need to take an overview of these reports, for the reasons you’ve stated, and then we can make an assessment to try to get a fuller picture.

[Wickerman]

If anyone is looking into the Kelly inquest they can do no better than checking out this thread on JtRForums by Wickerman. He has not only posted the original inquest report but he has done the same for the versions printed in 17 newspapers. A great resource to have all in one place.

Thanks Mike.
The comparison of sources demonstrates how limited the Court record was. Some prefer to think of it as the official record, but that is a misnomer as the record is not complete, and the purpose for the record is not for a historical reasons.
It should be noted the court record does not include questions put to the witness, unlike some press versions. Also, the court recorder, likely Hodgkinson, did not know shorthand, unlike the crime reporter from the newspapers who were required to know shorthand as part of their job. Which means his account was kept short, sometimes in summary, in order to not miss anything of significance.
Consequently, the court record is brief and lacks detail.
There is a distinct difference between what the court requires to be recorded for legal purposes and what the newspaper requires to make the account interesting to their readers.
Then, there is the varying degrees of editing by the newspapers in order to fit available space in their columns.

In summary then, there are three distinct reasons to keep in mind why we see differences between the court record and the press.
1 - the comparison between longhand, and shorthand accounts.
2 - what is required for legal purposes, as opposed to the interest of the public.
3 - the varying degrees of editing by individual newspapers.

When students of the case are prone to criticize one source over the other, it is necessary to take the above three reasons into account.

Only the Central Criminal Court, aka Old Bailey, was known to record court transcripts in shorthand, local inquests rarely if ever had the means to employ a recorder with knowledge of shorthand.

[GBinOz]

Thanks to Herlock for the link, and to Jon for his compilation, and to Doc for his comments.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Doc,

I agree with your assessment of Maxwell as the best witness and most under-rated by far. While Barnett, at least, eventually identified the body formally, I was referring to their initial statements when they first viewed the body through the window. First evidence ...and all that.

I think we can confidentially say that no one knows what actually happened, and we are all here to try to speculate what may have happened. Who is right...no one that I can discern, although many think they might be. I don't think I am right, I am merely considering possibilities.

Cheers, George

Not might be ,they think they "ARE"!!!!

[Doctored Whatsit]

If anyone is looking into the Kelly inquest they can do no better than checking out this thread on JtRForums by Wickerman. He has not only posted the original inquest report but he has done the same for the versions printed in 17 newspapers. A great resource to have all in one place.

Thanks to Wick for this.


https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...tion-jon-smyth

Yes, I was going to add, after a check of the facts in the A - Z, due to George's comments about proceedings being steered, that the inquest was quite odd. Firstly we had the dubious choice of Macdonald as Coroner instead of Baxter, then Macdonald ended the inquest in one day preventing a great deal of evidence being revealed. Easily both the most vicious murder and the shortest inquest. Baxter would have continued the inquest over a much longer period, and much more information would have been made public. This again is odd and suspicious.

Another out of the ordinary feature was that Maxwell said it was very odd to see Kelly up at this time of the morning.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If anyone is looking into the Kelly inquest they can do no better than checking out this thread on JtRForums by Wickerman. He has not only posted the original inquest report but he has done the same for the versions printed in 17 newspapers. A great resource to have all in one place.

Thanks to Wick for this.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-medical-men-inquest-doctor-reports/the-inquests/18240-mary-kelly-inquest-compilation-jon-smyth

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

I would not question your assertion that the police were not stupid, but Abberline questioned Maxwell and stated that he could not break her story and that he felt she was a person of integrity. She held to her story in the face of opposition from the coroner. Could there have been a hidden agenda? Surely not. People of influence have never been known to steer proceedings in a desired direction.

McCarthy was a person of influence, and when he went to the police station he requested to speak with a specific person (Reid). Perhaps he had previous dealings with Reid, or perhaps he had influence with Reid. I come back to my former question. Who would be hurt by a murder victim in Kelly's room, that was not Kelly, rented from McCarthy under the peculiar circumstance of what essentially amounted to rent free room?

Yes, I agree that at least initially, Maxwell impressed Abberline, which is why I wondered whether other information, which we don't have, was discovered.

And yes, I am very dubious about McCarthy.

[GBinOz]

Hi again,

I am a firm believer in the concept that the police were not stupid - which some peoples' proposals require - though they could make mistakes. But they also had a great deal of information which we don't possess, and that might have made a difference. They chose to reject Maxwell's story for reasons which we cannot know.

The thought that they must have known something which we don't know, causing them to dismiss Maxwell's account, is possibly the only reason I have to accept that it was Kelly who was murdered.

Hi Doc,

I would not question your assertion that the police were not stupid, but Abberline questioned Maxwell and stated that he could not break her story and that he felt she was a person of integrity. She held to her story in the face of opposition from the coroner. Could there have been a hidden agenda? Surely not. People of influence have never been known to steer proceedings in a desired direction.

McCarthy was a person of influence, and when he went to the police station he requested to speak with a specific person (Reid). Perhaps he had previous dealings with Reid, or perhaps he had influence with Reid. I come back to my former question. Who would be hurt by a murder victim in Kelly's room, that was not Kelly, rented from McCarthy under the peculiar circumstance of what essentially amounted to rent free room?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

I agree with your assessment of Maxwell as the best witness and most under-rated by far. While Barnett, at least, eventually identified the body formally, I was referring to their initial statements when they first viewed the body through the window. First evidence ...and all that.

I think we can confidentially say that no one knows what actually happened, and we are all here to try to speculate what may have happened. Who is right...no one that I can discern, although many think they might be. I don't think I am right, I am merely considering possibilities.

Cheers, George

Hi again,

I am a firm believer in the concept that the police were not stupid - which some peoples' proposals require - though they could make mistakes. But they also had a great deal of information which we don't possess, and that might have made a difference. They chose to reject Maxwell's story for reasons which we cannot know.

The thought that they must have known something which we don't know, causing them to dismiss Maxwell's account, is possibly the only reason I have to accept that it was Kelly who was murdered.