Was She Wrong?

[Tom_Wescott]

exactly Tom
weird though that she got her physical description wrong yet got the clothes right.

Not if she was shown the clothes that were left on the chair. Like Lawende was shown Kate's boots and bonnet. It would be only natural for her to describe them at the inquest.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[kjab3112]

Daryl, let’s not forget her admittedly self told story, of the fancy west end period. She claimed to have retrieved many items of clothing, could this be one of the items she still had? This was also an area of many second hand market stalls etc and this could have been a fake item to attract a higher paying clientele, lifting her above the run of the mill streetwalker

[Darryl Kenyon]

In the JTR sourcebook P406 . Caroline Maxwell says that Mary [ in her inquest testimony ], was wearing a dark dress, black velvet body and a coloured wrapper around her neck.

This is what A1 [ google ] says about a Black Velvet body when I asked the question was black velvet expensive for women to wear in Victorian England -

Yes, black velvet was generally expensive in Victorian England, especially for women's clothing. Velvet, in general, was a luxurious fabric, and black dye, particularly a stable one, was more costly than other colors. This made black velvet garments, like a "body" (bodice or corset cover), a sign of wealth and social status.

Would Mary be able to afford such a piece of clothing . And if she did own such a garment why hadn't she pawned it for , say her rent arrears. And lastly would she wear such apparel first thing in the morning, hmmm

Regards Darryl

[scottnapa]

Hi Herlock,

Maxwell's statement was accepted by Abberline, and never varied, unlike other witnesses. I can't see any reason to doubt her. She is supported by other witnesses, some of whom may have been numbered among those who were prepared to testify but were denied by the coroner finishing the inquest prematurely. The milk vendor supported her timeline, and there was no reason that I can discern for her to have lied.

As you may be aware, I number amongst the heretics that consider that the body found in the room was not that of Mary Jane Kelly. Maxwell testified that Mary told her that she (Kelly) had thrown up in the street, and Maxwell testified that she had observed said vomit. Kelly told Maxwell that she was under the effects of excessive drink, so it is reasonable to conclude that to contents of her stomach ended up on the pavement, to be observed by Maxwell. But the autopsy recorded that there were undigested contents in the stomach. How could this be??

The answer is that Kelly was allowing her room to be used by other prostitutes, which is why Barnett left, and why McCarthy allowed her to retain her room, having struck a deal with her to share in the profits of her endeavours. So Kelly returns to her room and discovers that whoever has been allowed to use her room has been murdered. She staggers from the room, after having viewed the body, and throws up in the street just as Maxwell approaches. She returns to her room and, seeing the opportunity to start a new life, changes into the victims clothing, leaving the clothing that Maxwell saw her wearing in the room.

That is my current opinion FWIW.

Cheers, George

George
I appreciate your comments on Maxwell et al., but I can’t get my head around how the switch of bodies can go unnoticed. How could Mary Kelly a broke unfortunate leave town. She had no family to help her. Why hide the fact that she is alive anyway? She would have been famous if it became known that Mary Kelly has tricked fate and Jack The Ripper, too. This unnamed dead prostitute would be looked for by those who knew her. Hutchinson testimony creates a difficult timeline for another prostitute and another punter. Many of my questions are part of the Sugden observations listed above.
i have looked online and on this site for an article that explains the Mary Kelly is alive theory, but have found nothing.

[Doctored Whatsit]

The "quote" button isn't working for me!

The point I was trying to make earler is that Maxwell's evidence seemed to be that she knew Barnett and Kelly as a couple. If this is so, and that is what the evidence suggests, then she positively knew Kelly, and could not have confused her with someone else.

[Abby Normal]

The woman in the room was Kelly, but probably the woman Maxwell spoke to was not. Maxwell's physical description of Kelly doesn't jibe with how others who knew her well described her. I think it's possible that Maxwell was absolutely accurate about everything she said except as regards the identity of the woman she spoke to.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

exactly Tom
weird though that she got her physical description wrong yet got the clothes right.

[Tom_Wescott]

The woman in the room was Kelly, but probably the woman Maxwell spoke to was not. Maxwell's physical description of Kelly doesn't jibe with how others who knew her well described her. I think it's possible that Maxwell was absolutely accurate about everything she said except as regards the identity of the woman she spoke to.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[kjab3112]

Witnesses do claim to know a victim, it gets them attention, it's not unusual.



Jurisdiction lies where the body is found, that was Macdonalds district - nothing suspicious about that.
I don't like the fact the inquest was over so quick, but Macdonald did nothing suspicious, he played it all by the rule book.

Wickerman, it should also be remembered the purpose of a coroner’s inquest is purely establishment of facts - who, when and where, how. All of this is balance of probability (lower threshold than beyond all reasonable doubt). MacDonald was satisfied that the cause of death, location, timing and identification had been established and deliberately left the question of responsible person to the police. Yes he may have been pressured to do this, or he could have determined that he was the coroner and identifying the guilty party is beyond his remit. I don’t think anyone would argue that the victim wasn’t killed at some point between midnight and before ten in Miller’s Court by another’s hand. The only question remaining would be who was the likely victim - Joe Barnett’s identification would be more than sufficient even now given they were found in MJK’s locked room.

Paul

[Wickerman]

One problem with the suggestion that Maxwell mistook Kelly for someone else is that she said she knew Kelly and Barnett. If she knew Kelly and Barnett had been together, and knew them both, a mistake seems very unlikely, if not impossible. . .

Witnesses do claim to know a victim, it gets them attention, it's not unusual.

Is it a pure coincidence that MacDonald was unexpectedly and suspiciously given the Inquest . .

Jurisdiction lies where the body is found, that was Macdonalds district - nothing suspicious about that.
I don't like the fact the inquest was over so quick, but Macdonald did nothing suspicious, he played it all by the rule book.

[Doctored Whatsit]

If you remember in the Friday of the murder the press were under the impression the victim lived upstairs and had a child, this may be the woman Maxwell recognised, thinking it was the victim.
I don't think Maxwell intentionally lied, she was mistaken, thats the sum of it.

One problem with the suggestion that Maxwell mistook Kelly for someone else is that she said she knew Kelly and Barnett. If she knew Kelly and Barnett had been together, and knew them both, a mistake seems very unlikely, if not impossible.

I don't believe that she got the day wrong either, as she made her statement the same day, and other aspects of it checked out, including at least one other witness. I believe that her story is either correct, or a deliberate lie. And I can't think of a satisfactory reason for her to lie.

Is it a pure coincidence that MacDonald was unexpectedly and suspiciously given the Inquest, and terminated the consideration of the most appalling murder after just one day, when Baxter would have kept it going for several days, and called several unhelpful witnesses?

Almost everything about Kelly, whoever she really was, is a mystery!

[Wickerman]

. . .

I am sure I have read/seen somewhere that unfortunate women in Victorian England of Irish descent used the pseudonym [ and not their real name ], Kelly, and often Mary ?
Maybe Caroline got her Kelly's, so to speak mixed up ?
. . .
Regards Darryl

Yes, I posted a portion of an interview with Prater who implied they use false names . . .



If you remember in the Friday of the murder the press were under the impression the victim lived upstairs and had a child, this may be the woman Maxwell recognised, thinking it was the victim.
I don't think Maxwell intentionally lied, she was mistaken, thats the sum of it.

[FrankO]

You undoubtedly know this, Frank, but Inspector Abberline alludes to making such a list, but it is not known to have survived.

For what it's worth, the press descriptions of Kate Eddowes' clothing and belongings were generally accurate as judged by the surviving police inventory list in the Mitre Square case.

Thanks Roger, if I knew about the list Abberline alludes to, I have forgotten about it after studying the Maxwell issue many years ago. Re-studying it this time, I mainly studied it with the help of Casebook and JtRForums. Since my move from Holland to Italy, my books are in storage at one of my brothers-in-law. In short, this time I didn't stumble upon the alluded-to list.

Regarding that list, I can only assume then that, at best, there was a set of clothes found in Kelly's room that could fit Maxwell's description of the clothes 'her' Mary Jane was wearing or didn't contradict it. Just a dark coloured outfit and a shawl, pelerine, cross-over or wrapper of any colour or perhaps even one or two items that were similar might have sufficed.

In her police statement she said: dark dress, black velvet body, and coloured wrapper round her neck. But would a 'wrapper' be the same as a shawl? Or a cross-over? And why did she say 'coloured' and only later (or, at least, on other occasions) said the shawl/cross-over was 'maroon'?

What I also find odd is that in her police statement she says: "I have known deceased woman during the past 4 [“or 5” — deleted] months, she was known as Mary Jane and that since Joe Barnett left her she has obtained her living as an unfortunate", while in one interview she said: "I had no idea she was an unfortunate" and in another "I didn't know then that she had separated from the man she had been living with, and I thought he had been "paying" her."

Anyway, you get it, Roger: I'm not convinced by Maxwell.

Cheers,
Frank

[Darryl Kenyon]

Wick makes a very good point on Mary Malcolm, especially since she also testified. So of course Caroline Maxwell needn't have lied [ just a little theory of mine ] and been mistaken .

I am sure I have read/seen somewhere that unfortunate women in Victorian England of Irish descent used the pseudonym [ and not their real name ], Kelly, and often Mary ?
Maybe Caroline got her Kelly's, so to speak mixed up ?

Caroline could have also been a bit of a fantasist who embellished her evidence. Unfortunately it does happen. As, for instance in the Washington snipers case -

Investigators had new optimism they would catch the killer because for the first time they believed a witness had clearly seen the gunman's face, his weapon and his getaway vehicle. Today, law enforcement officials said all those descriptions were unreliable because the witness had misled them.
"At the time that was still a good description," said Capt. Nancy Demme of the Montgomery County Police Department, the spokeswoman who released the information on Wednesday. "That has been discredited."
Authorities had said Wednesday that at least one witness to the shooting of FBI employee Linda Franklin reported seeing a cream-colored van with a malfunctioning taillight, and said the shooter used an AK-74 rifle.
The witness reportedly also said the shooter had a dark or olive-skinned complexion, leading him to believe the sniper was Hispanic or of Middle Eastern descent.
But those descriptions proved false when the witness admitted to authorities Wednesday night that he was inside the Home Depot store and not in the parking lot at the time of the shooting, sources told ABCNEWS.

Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

Furthermore, as far as I know, there is no document compiled by the police listing the clothes that were found in MJK’s room, let alone a mentioning of the very clothes she was supposed to have been wearing the night before her murder or on the morning of the 9^th. We only have Cox’s description of her - “She had no hat; a red pelerine and a shabby skirt” – and two uncorroborated newspaper snippets (DN of 10 Nov. and Times of 12 Nov.) saying that a velvet bodice and a maroon shawl were found in her room, items mentioned by Maxwell.

You undoubtedly know this, Frank, but Inspector Abberline alludes to making such a list, but it is not known to have survived.

For what it's worth, the press descriptions of Kate Eddowes' clothing and belongings were generally accurate as judged by the surviving police inventory list in the Mitre Square case.

[Wickerman]

I haven't Wick, I should have worded my last post better. . .

Hi Darryl, yes that is what threw me, I thought I had missed something the way you appeared to accept the association as if it had been verified. It was a genuine question.
I just view evidence like stepping stones, it being necessary to establish your first step, before you take a second.

We know Caroline stood by her evidence, so she was either right [ not for me ], was again right but it wasn't Mary who was killed [ again, not for me ], she could have been mistaken or a fantasist, yes a possibility, or she lied to protect someone . Who would she lie for to protect ? Conjecture on my part I know, but just trying to make some sense of her testimony . . .

Have you forgotten about Mary Malcolm in the Stride case?
Malcolm was absolutely certain the body was that of her sister, she identified her by the black wound on her leg, and she agreed her nickname was 'Long Liz'. While there were other details that did not fit, her opinion remained the same she was certain, finally saying, "I have no doubt", that the body was that of her sister.

Mistaken identities do happen, its part of life. We don't have to create conspiracy theories just because we refuse to accept Maxwell was mistaken, just the same way Mary Malcolm was.