Was She Wrong?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hello Doctored,

It seems we are left with the old conundrum of possible versus probable. But as I pointed out in my previous post, the question of whether or not it was Mary does not exist in a vacuum. Those who say it was not need to answer the questions put forth in post no. 11 in this thread.

c.d.

As I previously said, I don't advocate the probability of the body not being Kelly, I merely accept the possibility. But I don't see the problems that you see. If another "unfortunate" came to see her and shared the room, which did happen on occasions, without meeting other people first, nobody else would know of her presence. If Kelly had a moderately wealthy client, she could have rushed away with him without taking any possessions, afraid for her life. I don't push this possibility, but I have major problems rejecting Maxwell's evidence.

[Abby Normal]

If Jack killed Mary at say between eight and ten in the morning. The cry of Murder at around 4 am , in-between the two Doctor's death estimates was entirely coincidental even though Sarah Lewis thought it came from the direction of Mary's room, and Elizabeth Prater thought it was somewhere in the court also.

When Catherine Pickett went banging on Mary's door at 7 30 in the morning, she wasn't dead, just asleep or out and about, even though nobody saw her out and about at that time and if the knocking did wake Mary up, she then got dressed , went out and got herself some ale, drunk it, threw it up, ate some fish and potatoes, possibly had to cook the meal all in an hour with the horrors of drink on her. But nobody saw her going out, probably buying the ale and then throwing it back up. Nobody saw Mary bringing a client back just before nine as well, even though I am assuming the streets would be rather busy at that time, including her landlord or his assistant who probably would have asked her for his weekly rent . Nobody saw Mary from the court put her hand through the broken window either, though said window leads directly on to the court. And the killer must have been really in luck because nobody saw him leave Mary's room half an hour later or so in broad daylight.

Abberline's perfectly plausible explanation of the remains of the ladies clothing in the grate being burnt to give the killer light must have been wrong as well since the murderer wouldn't need that light at ten in the morning.

Mrs Maxwell was interviewed on the ninth, and yet because her testimony disagreed wholly with what the police thought, the Police would surely have asked around but didn't find anybody else to testify on the twelve to back the timing of her death [mid morning], three days later even though say, Maria Harvey testified without really adding anything to when Mary was killed.

Maurice Lewis who also allegedly saw Mary even later is even more dubious. He saw Mary in a pub drinking with some people.Who were these people ? And why didn't any of them come forward . And if he was telling the truth the killer must have worked at the speed of light to get Mary back to her room unseen and then cut her up and leave all within forty five mins.

Methinks otherwise

Regards Darryl

exactly dk. plus whos going to be out soliciting sex after just throwing up, thats basically alcohol poisoning.
maxwell also said she seen kelly only two times over the course of months. thats not knowing someone well. mary had friends sleep over and in and out of her place alot it seems, and IMHO to me its a perfect storm for mistaken identity.

And of course as you say, the time is way too tight for maxwell, let alone lewis, to be accurate.

[c.d.]

Hello Doctored,

It seems we are left with the old conundrum of possible versus probable. But as I pointed out in my previous post, the question of whether or not it was Mary does not exist in a vacuum. Those who say it was not need to answer the questions put forth in post no. 11 in this thread.

c.d.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi George,

To use your wife analogy -- if someone comes home from work, do they immediately kiss their wife or do they go through a 24 item checklist in order to confirm that this person who looks like your wife is actually her? Was "Mary" just the sum of her body parts?

c.d.

Continuing this line of thought, there was a female body lying in Kelly's bed, therefore logically, it must have been Kelly, would be a natural assumption, but not necessarily a fact. Others shared the bed from time to time. It was Kelly, because nobody had evidence to suggest it could have been someone else, and because of her eyes, ears or hair. It's not overpowering evidence, although it certainly could be correct, and very likely is.

There has to be a little bit of doubt, and those who believe this may point to the near total destruction of any identifiable features as evidence of an attempt to conceal the true identity. I don't consider this to be the case, but I cannot say it is incorrect.

[Darryl Kenyon]

If Jack killed Mary at say between eight and ten in the morning. The cry of Murder at around 4 am , in-between the two Doctor's death estimates was entirely coincidental even though Sarah Lewis thought it came from the direction of Mary's room, and Elizabeth Prater thought it was somewhere in the court also.

When Catherine Pickett went banging on Mary's door at 7 30 in the morning, she wasn't dead, just asleep or out and about, even though nobody saw her out and about at that time and if the knocking did wake Mary up, she then got dressed , went out and got herself some ale, drunk it, threw it up, ate some fish and potatoes, possibly had to cook the meal all in an hour with the horrors of drink on her. But nobody saw her going out, probably buying the ale and then throwing it back up. Nobody saw Mary bringing a client back just before nine as well, even though I am assuming the streets would be rather busy at that time, including her landlord or his assistant who probably would have asked her for his weekly rent . Nobody saw Mary from the court put her hand through the broken window either, though said window leads directly on to the court. And the killer must have been really in luck because nobody saw him leave Mary's room half an hour later or so in broad daylight.

Abberline's perfectly plausible explanation of the remains of the ladies clothing in the grate being burnt to give the killer light must have been wrong as well since the murderer wouldn't need that light at ten in the morning.

Mrs Maxwell was interviewed on the ninth, and yet because her testimony disagreed wholly with what the police thought, the Police would surely have asked around but didn't find anybody else to testify on the twelve to back the timing of her death [mid morning], three days later even though say, Maria Harvey testified without really adding anything to when Mary was killed.

Maurice Lewis who also allegedly saw Mary even later is even more dubious. He saw Mary in a pub drinking with some people.Who were these people ? And why didn't any of them come forward . And if he was telling the truth the killer must have worked at the speed of light to get Mary back to her room unseen and then cut her up and leave all within forty five mins.

Methinks otherwise

Regards Darryl

[Abby Normal]

This thread was inspired by a comment from Doc on the Kelly Timeline thread.


Was Caroline Maxwell wrong? Philip Sugden was convinced of it:

The testimony of Mrs Maxwell is an unanswered riddle. Was she lying, drunk, or simply mistaken? On the first occasion she supposedly saw Mary, at 8.30, they conversed across the street. On the second Mary was standing about twenty-five yards away. At either distance Mrs Maxwell should have been able to recognize Mary and it seems more likely that she confused the date than the person. Whatever the answer, all we can say for certain is that her testimony was wrong.

Was she though?

Dr Phillips arrived at Miller’s Court at around 11.15 (Sugden said that he’d arrived at 10.45) said that she had been dead some 5 or 6 hours - so 4.45-5.45.

Dr Bond didn’t see the body until 2.00pm. Rigor was setting in, which he said normally occurred after 6-12 hours after death - 2.00am-8am

When we look at the two dissenting witnesses, Maurice Lewis and Caroline Maxwell we see that Lewis said that he first saw Mary leave her room at 8.00 and return a few moments later which ties in with Mary telling Maxwell (at 8.00-8.30) that she had just been for a drink. Then we have Caroline seeing Mary outside The Britannia at 8.45 with the coincidence of Lewis claiming to have seen her in The Britannia drinking in a group at 10.00.

That she was drinking at 10.00 but was then found in her room, in the state that she was discovered in, just 45 minutes later, isn’t possible.

Caroline Maxwell gave her testimony on the day of the murder so the suggestion that she might have got the day wrong doesn’t sound particularly likely to me. She set the time by her husband finishing his work as a lodging house deputy. A bit of leeway should always be allowed, and Caroline herself gives 30 minutes, so it’s difficult to see how she could have been signification further out in her time. It’s possible that she had consulted her husband as to the time and he had given her an incorrect one (maybe it was 7.00 instead of 8.00?)

The suggestion that the body wasn’t Mary has never carried any weight with me personally. Unless we get in conspiracy territory then Mary had no reason for keeping quiet when a body was found on her bed (she was hardly going to be suspected of the murder after all) One suggestion has been that she took advantage of the opportunity to ‘disappear’ to avoid her rent arrears but where would this penniless woman have gone and how could she have known that someone wouldn’t inform the police of this subterfuge? Would she have left her meagre possessions? Why hadn’t she ‘done a runner’ up until then?

The cry of ‘‘murder’’ is interesting but how significant was it? Sarah Lewis heard the cry at ‘nearly four’ which sounded “at our door.” She was across the court, to the left of Kelly’s room, and upstairs. Elizabeth Prater heard a cry at 3.30-3.45 (so no issue on times) but she lived directly above Mary and felt that the cry came from the court. Surely she would have known it if it had emanated from the room directly beneath her own? It seems likely that there was a cry of murder but are we just assuming that it was Mary? As far as we know, none of the other victims had cried out so is it really likely that the killer would have allowed Mary to call out; potentially trapping him in that room? Also, being in doors, and with Mary lying on the bed, how much easier for him to have strangled her into silence before proceeding. Whatever time Mary was actually killed I’m wary of accepting the cry of “murder” as coming from Mary.

Bond gives 2.00-8.00. We know the unreliability of the methods of fixing a ToD and how often would the doctors have experience a corpse so horrendously treated as Mary was, adding to the uncertainty. And then if we consider the possibility of Mrs Maxwell getting an incorrect time from her husband (maybe she was an hour out and had seen Mary at 7.00-7.30?)

Perhaps the most difficult question is, how could Maurice Lewis have supposedly seen her in The Britannia at 10.00?


I’m not supporting any theory or claiming to know the truth because I don’t but my question is…are we too quick to dismiss the testimony of Caroline Maxwell?

no. she was wrong lol.

but i dont agree with sugden on this point about why. Maxwell gave her testimony that day about something that happened that morning so i find it hard to believe she was wrong about what day. imho opinion she saw someone who she thought was mary kelly. so wrong person.

plus maxwell has always struck me as similar to mrs mortimer. a nosy busybody who in there desire to hear themselves talk and seem important, only end up adding worthless and confusing twattle.

the overwhelming evidence is that she was dead in the room by around four am.

[c.d.]

Hi George,

To use your wife analogy -- if someone comes home from work, do they immediately kiss their wife or do they go through a 24 item checklist in order to confirm that this person who looks like your wife is actually her? Was "Mary" just the sum of her body parts?

c.d.

[GBinOz]

Hi George--- No, I don't think I could conclusively identify anyone by their ears--wife, child, or even myself. But then, that's one of the reasons that I think Joe's actual testimony was 'air and not ear. The idea of an ear identification is too off-the-wall unless her ears had some distinctive deformity, etc.

Hi RJ,

While modern theory is that ear structure is as distinctive as fingerprints, who notices either in a spouse. I quite agree that Joe may have been talking about hair rather than ear, but again, apart from colour, which can be artificial, what is to be discerned without a microscope other than the colour?

[rjpalmer]

Hi George--- No, I don't think I could conclusively identify anyone by their ears--wife, child, or even myself. But then, that's one of the reasons that I think Joe's actual testimony was 'air and not ear. The idea of an ear identification is too off-the-wall unless her ears had some distinctive deformity, etc.

[c.d.]

I just can't get on board with the body in the room not being Kelly. Barnett had been living with her and sharing a bed together. He saw the body including her distinctive hair as R.J. mentioned. And not to be too touchy-feely but would his conclusion be restricted entirely to physical traits or would he have had a sense that yes, that is Mary? I know it.

If you are able to get over that hurdle then the question becomes well if not Mary then who was it? Did the victim's family and friends go the police to report her disappearance? Would Mary have confided in friends and the women in Millers Court? Would she have sworn them to secrecy regarding her plans? Did the police ever express any doubts in this matter?

Would Mary have made a spur of the moment decision to leave? Apparently she had no money. Did she take any clothes or personal items with her? Would Barnett have noticed had those things been missing from the apartment?

Yes, it is certainly an intriguing theory but one with very little evidence to back it. It pretty much flies in the face of Occam's Razor.

c.d.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Surely Joe “dropped his aitches” and he recognized her distinctive hair and not her ear?

Hi RJ,

That is a possibility, despite being contrary to the actual testimony, but how distinctive was her hair? A little dye could be employed for the purpose of fashion. That aside, what is your vote in the poll?

[rjpalmer]

Just as a casual poll, how many of you guys out there could identify your wife based entirely on her ears and eyes, either attached to her head (ears) or detached as in the case of MJK. I have to register in the negative (kindly do not inform my wife of over thirty years).

Hi George,

Surely Joe “dropped his aitches” and he recognized her distinctive hair and not her ear?

[GBinOz]

Just as a casual poll, how many of you guys out there could identify your wife based entirely on her ears and eyes, either attached to her head (ears) or detached as in the case of MJK. I have to register in the negative (kindly do not inform my wife of over thirty years).

[GBinOz]

IMHO the murder occurred at about 4am, but the victim was someone other than MJK.

[GBinOz]

I did not realise that Dr Phillips had suggested that Kelly had been dead for 5 or 6 hours.

Although Dr Phillips arrived at Millers Court at about 11. 15am, he was unable to enter the premises until about 1. 30 pm, when the lock was broken. If he said ToD was 5 or 6 hours earlier, then we could have a murder as late as 8. 30 am without querying the accuracy of his estimate, which we know would have been a bit approximate.

Good point Doc. Phillips could not have estimated a TOD without access to the body, which did not occur until 1:30 pm.