Was She Wrong?

[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

[Wickerman]

Who established H. Maxwell worked for McCarthy?

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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.