Was She Wrong?

[Kattrup]

I’m not saying that all of this establishes that Maxwell couldn’t have seen Kelly when she said she did, but I don’t think it’s as certain as you and other people suggest it is.

Cheers,
Frank

I agree, Frank. One should also consider that the police largely discounted her sighting, I think.

[FrankO]

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.

Hi George,

These two points are frequently if not always put forward in favour of Maxwell being correct, but how strong are they, really?

What fact does us give the certainty that she knew Mary Jane’s name well before she was interviewed by the police? As far as I know, there’s nothing solid. And how do we know for a fact that Mary Jane knew Maxwell’s name was Caroline or that she was apparently called Carry? We don’t know and only have Maxwell’s word for it. The odd thing is that Maxwell didn’t mention them calling each other by their first names in her police statement. Only at the inquest she added this, just as she only added there that the woman she saw wore no hat, which, as far as I’ve been able to gather, was not uncommon for women in the East End.

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.

Lastly, Mary Jane was described by 3 newspapers as tall, slim, fair, of fresh complexion and attractive and Elizabeth Prater describer her as about 23 years old, tall and pretty, and as fair as a lily. Maxwell described her as about 23 years old, a pleasant little woman, rather stout, fair complexion, and rather pale. Interestingly, in the same article where Prater describes Mary Jane (Star of 10 November), she says she last saw Kelly at about nine o’clock on Thursday night and: “I have known her since July - since I came to lodge here” and “She [MJK] had got her hat and jacket on, but I had not. I haven't got a hat or a jacket.” Of course, Kelly must have left her hat in her room after speaking to Prater, but the interesting things of this article are that Prater came to live there in July, which was 4 months prior to Kelly’s murder and that she didn’t posess a hat, so certainly wasn’t wearing a hat on either the evening of the 8^th until she went to bed at about 1.30 am or on the morning of the 9^th.

I’m not saying that all of this establishes that Maxwell couldn’t have seen Kelly when she said she did, but I don’t think it’s as certain as you and other people suggest it is.

Cheers,
Frank

[Darryl Kenyon]

Who established H. Maxwell worked for McCarthy?

I haven't Wick, I should have worded my last post better. But I do feel it would be highly likely that McCarthy would have some kind or someone to keep an eye out on his properties at night . Mary was six weeks rent in debt, her rent was due the morning after. She had next to nothing possession wise so easily could have done a moonlit flit. I know there has been much research done on the lords of Spitalfields [ which i need to catch up on ], perhaps Henry Maxwell was paid a little extra to keep an eye out on Millers court [one entrance in and out ], while he was on night duty across the road.

What is known is at around 2:30 in the morning Sarah Lewis saw someone outside the very lodging house were Maxwell worked, "Looking up the court, as if waiting for someone to come out " I know you believe this to be Hutch, Wick but no disrespects we differ on that.

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 .

Regards Darryl

[Wickerman]

Who established H. Maxwell worked for McCarthy?

[Darryl Kenyon]

this was Pierres suspect and theory. pretty far fetched dont ya think DK?

I don't necessarily agree with Pierre regarding Henry Maxwell as the ripper Abby, but I do feel there is a chance that Caroline Maxwell may have lied about seeing Mary in the morning so her husband didn't get any come back off McCarthy if he was his lookout for Miller's court . IE People doing moonlit flits before rent day etc . I personally believe it highly unlikely that Mary was alive that late in the morning to the point of beyond reasonable doubt. And I feel the same way about it being someone else other than Mary on that bed. And if Caroline wasn't mistaken about seeing Mary the only other explanation is she lied. So just trying to make some sense of why she would ?As a side issue , I don't believe it was Hutchinson seen by Sarah Lewis either. So a good bet would be Henry Maxwell who was on night duty at that very building in the doorway as if looking for someone to come out, as Sarah Lewis said . Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did anyone read the book? I tried to get a copy a year or two ago but they aren’t available.

[Abby Normal]

Henry Maxwell is a distinct possibility in my eyes [ for being protected ]. He was possibly the man seen by Sarah Lewis outside the lodging house [ after all he was working there that night ]. He may have been doing some kind of look out work for McCarthy to stop people, especially Mary doing a midnight flit [ rent arrears ]. And feared some kind of repercussion IE He gave up looking after, say three in the morning and had a nap, so to speak. These were desperate time and if he was to lose , possibly for that time, a quite decent job as deputy lodging house keeper and he may have been ill [ he died a few months later ]. What would the future hold ?

So Caroline lied about seeing Mary to protect her husband, who would have been off his shift by that time.
Just a thought

Regards Darryl

this was Pierres suspect and theory. pretty far fetched dont ya think DK?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Darryl,

The Although I never managed to acquire his (her) book, wasn’t Henry Maxwell Pierre’s suspect?

Yes you are correct Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Henry Maxwell is a distinct possibility in my eyes [ for being protected ]. He was possibly the man seen by Sarah Lewis outside the lodging house [ after all he was working there that night ]. He may have been doing some kind of look out work for McCarthy to stop people, especially Mary doing a midnight flit [ rent arrears ]. And feared some kind of repercussion IE He gave up looking after, say three in the morning and had a nap, so to speak. These were desperate time and if he was to lose , possibly for that time, a quite decent job as deputy lodging house keeper and he may have been ill [ he died a few months later ]. What would the future hold ?

So Caroline lied about seeing Mary to protect her husband, who would have been off his shift by that time.
Just a thought

Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

Although I never managed to acquire his (her) book, wasn’t Henry Maxwell Pierre’s suspect?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Henry Maxwell is a distinct possibility in my eyes [ for being protected ]. He was possibly the man seen by Sarah Lewis outside the lodging house [ after all he was working there that night ]. He may have been doing some kind of look out work for McCarthy to stop people, especially Mary doing a midnight flit [ rent arrears ]. And feared some kind of repercussion IE He gave up looking after, say three in the morning and had a nap, so to speak. These were desperate time and if he was to lose , possibly for that time, a quite decent job as deputy lodging house keeper and he may have been ill [ he died a few months later ]. What would the future hold ?

So Caroline lied about seeing Mary to protect her husband, who would have been off his shift by that time.
Just a thought

Regards Darryl

[Doctored Whatsit]

Is Caroline Maxwell's statement evidence?
It doesn't square with Barnett identification of Mary Kelly.
I see three possibilities but the thread only discusses two of the three.

1. Caroline Maxwell is telling the truth. Is Mary Kelly alive at 8, 9 & 10? Barnett identifies Mary Kelly. I trust Barnett. (CM is lying)
2. Caroline Maxwell is mistaken. A logical assumption, however Maxwell gave evidence the day of. How could she forget? (CM is not mistaken.)
3. Caroline Maxwell has an agenda, her reason for lying is to deflect blame (Yes.)

Tailor Maurice Lewis claims Mary Kelly was in the Britannia Pub. with Joe Barnett. This is clearly not true. And this lie by Lewis serves to cast doubt on the Maxwell assertion.
What is the reason for the lie?
Who would Britannia pub locals want to protect?

1. Joe Barnett. Likely.
2. George Hutchinson, Possibly
3. The Ripper, Unlikely.

Or Barnett's identification of Kelly doesn't square with the statements of Maxwell and Lewis. It works both ways.

If Maxwell was lying to protect Barnett, she was doing it badly. He had a perfectly good alibi for late that previous night, but did he have one for early the next morning?

[Doctored Whatsit]

I would question whether Joe could actually read and write. I suspect this is a police written statement that he was then asked to sign. Assuming his innocence, the woman he lived with has been found murdered and he’s had to identify her destroyed corpse. Would a fish porter really be able to produce such a calligraphed statement in such a scenario and if written for him, did he just sign without fully appreciating what was written? Yes, he could have said ear and meant ear, but I don’t think we can be sure and to be honest don’t think it really matters in respect of CM. Are we even sure that the MJK in Miller’s Court is even the Mary Kelly that Caroline Maxwell recognised? I would argue that Caroline Maxwell saw the Mary Kelly she knew and when asked about MJK assumed they were the same person (average to tall Irish woman via Wales aged 25 to 30), this confusion would explain the apparent difference in description (redhead and dark Mary don’t exactly fit but could be how they were differentiated at the time)

We know Joe B could read. In his statement he said Kelly asked him to read about the murders.

[scottnapa]

Is Caroline Maxwell's statement evidence?
It doesn't square with Barnett identification of Mary Kelly.
I see three possibilities but the thread only discusses two of the three.

1. Caroline Maxwell is telling the truth. Is Mary Kelly alive at 8, 9 & 10? Barnett identifies Mary Kelly. I trust Barnett. (CM is lying)
2. Caroline Maxwell is mistaken. A logical assumption, however Maxwell gave evidence the day of. How could she forget? (CM is not mistaken.)
3. Caroline Maxwell has an agenda, her reason for lying is to deflect blame (Yes.)

Tailor Maurice Lewis claims Mary Kelly was in the Britannia Pub. with Joe Barnett. This is clearly not true. And this lie by Lewis serves to cast doubt on the Maxwell assertion.
What is the reason for the lie?
Who would Britannia pub locals want to protect?

1. Joe Barnett. Likely.
2. George Hutchinson, Possibly
3. The Ripper, Unlikely.

[kjab3112]

Fortunately, we do not have to rely on the press, as we have his original statement. “Hair” is wrong

I would question whether Joe could actually read and write. I suspect this is a police written statement that he was then asked to sign. Assuming his innocence, the woman he lived with has been found murdered and he’s had to identify her destroyed corpse. Would a fish porter really be able to produce such a calligraphed statement in such a scenario and if written for him, did he just sign without fully appreciating what was written? Yes, he could have said ear and meant ear, but I don’t think we can be sure and to be honest don’t think it really matters in respect of CM. Are we even sure that the MJK in Miller’s Court is even the Mary Kelly that Caroline Maxwell recognised? I would argue that Caroline Maxwell saw the Mary Kelly she knew and when asked about MJK assumed they were the same person (average to tall Irish woman via Wales aged 25 to 30), this confusion would explain the apparent difference in description (redhead and dark Mary don’t exactly fit but could be how they were differentiated at the time)

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi c.d.,

On the basis of your judgement we could not accept the statements of any witness. Lawende and Long were giving evidence about people they didn't know and in the case of Long some four days later. If Maxwell could have mistaken the day, then Hutchinson should never again sustain reference. To claim that Maxwell mistook Mary for someone else must surely require some supporting evidence, of which is none is proffered. Mary may have had few or many outfits, but Maxwell described the outfit found in her room, to the chagrin of the coroner.

I am of the opinion that a woman was murdered at about 4am, but my contention is that it was someone other than Mary. I am therefore not in conflict with medical evidence including the partly digested fish and chips in the victim's stomach. Why should the report, not acted upon, of a very common cry of "murder" be accepted, but eye witness testimony be rejected based on speculation without logical basis? There were witnesses other than Maxwell who might have contributed to resolve this conundrum had not the inquest been concluded prematurely. I think it was Jon (Wickerman) that suggested that statements should be allowed to stand unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Cheers, George