Was She Wrong?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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]

Hi Darryl,

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

Yes you are correct Herlock.

[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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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