Possible explanation for Maxwell Discrepency?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

wow JohnG-Interesting take.

However, I don't think there has ever been a serial killer who started off killing in a gang. They tend to be loners. There whole psychology is the "double life". totally opposite of someone who feels the pull of the gang-different mentality.

Now many have started off with criminal records before they went on there spree-hot prowl burleries, peeping toms, rape seem to be the most common but again, done in isolation.

That's not saying that the ripper couldn't have been in a gang-just highly doubtful.

You raise valid points, as always, but there is JohnG said that is extremely valuable (I'm biased, because that's exactly what happens in the fiction I'm writing): how did he happen to know that he liked mutilating women?

What if he was just that, a thug, a gang member, and one night, they get carried away by going to far with an unfortunate (could be Horsnell) and he actually gets turned on by it. Of course he doesn't tell his buddies, but he starts experimenting (Smith) until he gets closer to what gives him most satisfaction (Tabram) and now he knows what he wants to do and starts with Nichols. Being a criminal, he might know how to cut a throat without being splashed in blood.

I admit I have no idea how he could remove a kidney in 9 minutes.

What do you think?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman
A lot of straw clutching going on here
Gaelic in Ireland was more common outside the main cities and probably similarly to Wales was not taught in schools.....in Wales it was called 'welsh not' and any child heard speaking Welsh had to wear a sign saying 'welsh not' as a punishment
The letters were almost certainly in English. Mary would probably never in her life seen Welsh as a written language and as we suspect limerick and Dublin then chances are same goes for Gaelic

Hi Packers.

Talking about straw clutching

Also, I'm not sure where you get your information about Gaelic, my father was born in Dublin but spoke Gaelic well enough. He learned it in a Catholic school.
How sure are you of your info.?

[packers stem]

Hi Packers.
I read that she 'asked him' to read the papers to her, not that he 'had to'.
Reading the papers was more of a 'man-thing', thats all.



What language were those letters written in, Welsh, Gaelic, or English?

The way I see this is, you have assumed Barnet 'had' to read the papers because Kelly couldn't. In support of this assumption you further assume the letters mentioned by McCarthy 'had' to be in English.

Your assumptions are taking you down one particular path, yet it was quite normal for the man of the house to read the newspapers, and given Kelly's background, those letters may not have been written in English at all.

Think about it, if you had a stranger receive private family letters for you, and your family could read & write another language other than English, wouldn't you arrange for them to write in their own language?, then at least you can be sure no prying eyes will read your letters.
Her family had no reason to learn English. They originated from Eire, and moved to Wales, why should they write in English?



Ok.

Hi Wickerman
A lot of straw clutching going on here
Gaelic in Ireland was more common outside the main cities and probably similarly to Wales was not taught in schools.....in Wales it was called 'welsh not' and any child heard speaking Welsh had to wear a sign saying 'welsh not' as a punishment
The letters were almost certainly in English. Mary would probably never in her life seen Welsh as a written language and as we suspect limerick and Dublin then chances are same goes for Gaelic
Everything said about Mary shows her as being strong willed and independent. If she wanted to read the paper herself why not.
Could Barnett have said it as some sort of male ego thing or did she pretend to him she was illiterate possibly

[Wickerman]

Try to be openminded here, Joe only had a quick look at the body that was found at Miller's Court,

I think you'll find that after the quick look through the window at Millers Court, he was later taken to the mortuary to make a firm identification.

[Wickerman]

Let's not forget he 'had to read everything about the murders to her'

Hi Packers.
I read that she 'asked him' to read the papers to her, not that he 'had to'.
Reading the papers was more of a 'man-thing', thats all.

.... Do you believe she was illiterate then despite McCarthy saying she was receiving letters? Because that's what Barnett's comments suggest.

What language were those letters written in, Welsh, Gaelic, or English?

The way I see this is, you have assumed Barnet 'had' to read the papers because Kelly couldn't. In support of this assumption you further assume the letters mentioned by McCarthy 'had' to be in English.

Your assumptions are taking you down one particular path, yet it was quite normal for the man of the house to read the newspapers, and given Kelly's background, those letters may not have been written in English at all.

Think about it, if you had a stranger receive private family letters for you, and your family could read & write another language other than English, wouldn't you arrange for them to write in their own language?, then at least you can be sure no prying eyes will read your letters.
Her family had no reason to learn English. They originated from Eire, and moved to Wales, why should they write in English?

Of course I'm serious.You're forgetting that there are many different types of redhead...you seem to be presuming a 'ginger'. Truth is like much about Mary Kelly, we just don't know.You're also forgetting again the possibility that Barnett's ID is a deliberate lie to help her disappear, doesn't have to be a mistaken ID at all

Ok.

[packers stem]

I just don't see Caroline Maxwell as a reliable witness, and Maurice Lewis even less so. For instance, Maxwell admits that she only spoke to Kelly on about two occasions over a four month period. I therefore really don't see how she could be certain of correctly identifying Kelly based upon such a casual acquaintance. She also points out that, when she spoke to her on the Friday morning, Kelly referred to her as "Carrie". The coroner clearly thought this strange, I.e because they'd only spoken on two occasions and I think he was right to do so. And it's worth noting that people were generally more formal in the way they addressed each other in the nineteenth century, particularly if they didn't know each other well: George Hutchinson, for instance, claimed that Kelly referred to him as "Mr Hutchinson", even though they'd known each other for about three years.

Hi John
I find this all quite ridiculous.Anything to push a theory. Maxwell is witness number 1..... Bar none.
How can anyone throw things like only spoke to her a couple of times, trying to make calling her Carrie a negative rather than the positive that it is and then go on to 'quote' Hutchinson as if he's real!!! The fella who apparently turns up at 6 on inquest day.Only just heard of the murder? or had it just dawned on the man that he may have seen something??

Maxwell, also claimed to have seen Kelly outside the Britannia at around 8:45, talking to a man, but no one else verified this sighting. As for Maurice Lewis, is claim to have seen Kelly drinking and talking to some people in the Ringers after 10:00am seems totally far-fetched, I.e. because not a single other person recalls seeing or talking to Kelly in the pub at that time.

Why far fetched? How many people came forward to say they'd seen her in the Ringers or any other pub the night before?
And you're wrong about Lewis
He first saw her coming out of her room when playing pitch and toss IN the court that morning.He must have actually seen her coming out of her room.I've mentioned before that if that was a good place to play it chances are they played it there regularly. He would have been used to seeing Kelly entering and leaving her room. He's another top,top witness. In fact, given daylight and location,these two must be by far the strongest witnesses of movement in the entire series of murders.. To dismiss them and attempt to use the testimony of others is ridiculous. Let's not try to make maxwell out to be 'unreliable' and then use a quote from Mr reliable,I'll stand here in the rain for three quarters of an hour in the middle of the night,as some sort of evidence please

Could it be a local conspiracy? Well, I very much doubt they'd have got away with it. There was clearly a conspiracy involving the later Austin murder, also in Dorset Street. Nonetheless, the police quickly realized what was happening, as did the coroner at the inquest when several witnesses were caught out lying. And this was a conspiracy involving Daniel Sullivan, Wiliam Crossingham's brother in law, and possibly even Crossingham or John MCCarthy. I doubt, therefore, if a conspiracy in favour of a penniless local woman would have succeeded.

Nothing localised about the conspiracy but McCarthy could well have known something

[curious4]

Amazing that you found it, though! It was my daughter who saw it and she found it extremely funny. Standards are slipping. Perhaps there is a conspiracy of Barons - no Barons in any of the JTR books at least, not that I have noticed, but perhaps I should go back and check :-).

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

Hi C4,

Yes, some very good points. And wasn't her husband a lodging house deputy? If so, that might explain why she may have regarded herself as someone of importance in the local community.

Just checked that EU committee. It seems to be chaired by Baron Alexandre Lamfalussy. Another baron, just like the judge in that case I cited- the world seems to be full of them!

Hello John

Yes, but they never come bearing gifts!

Best wishes
C4

[John G]

Hello John

I agree. I think she had a great sense of her own importance and wanted to get in on the act, not realising that she would have to appear as a witness. She then obviously thought she couldn't back down, so embellished her statement to make it more believable.

(Not thinking quite clearly today, been struggling with the task of cleaning up a translation in which the words "Xxx's offering to their customers" appeared. Not quite as bad as an official EU site stating that "a committee of wise men....."!)

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

Yes, some very good points. And wasn't her husband a lodging house deputy? If so, that might explain why she may have regarded herself as someone of importance in the local community.

Just checked that EU committee. It seems to be chaired by Baron Alexandre Lamfalussy. Another baron, just like the judge in that case I cited- the world seems to be full of them!

[curious4]

I just don't see Caroline Maxwell as a reliable witness, and Maurice Lewis even less so. For instance, Maxwell admits that she only spoke to Kelly on about two occasions over a four month period. I therefore really don't see how she could be certain of correctly identifying Kelly based upon such a casual acquaintance. She also points out that, when she spoke to her on the Friday morning, Kelly referred to her as "Carrie". The coroner clearly thought this strange, I.e because they'd only spoken on two occasions and I think he was right to do so. And it's worth noting that people were generally more formal in the way they addressed each other in the nineteenth century, particularly if they didn't know each other well: George Hutchinson, for instance, claimed that Kelly referred to him as "Mr Hutchinson", even though they'd known each other for about three years.

Maxwell, also claimed to have seen Kelly outside the Britannia at around 8:45, talking to a man, but no one else verified this sighting. As for Maurice Lewis, is claim to have seen Kelly drinking and talking to some people in the Ringers after 10:00am seems totally far-fetched, I.e. because not a single other person recalls seeing or talking to Kelly in the pub at that time.

Could it be a local conspiracy? Well, I very much doubt they'd have got away with it. There was clearly a conspiracy involving the later Austin murder, also in Dorset Street. Nonetheless, the police quickly realized what was happening, as did the coroner at the inquest when several witnesses were caught out lying. And this was a conspiracy involving Daniel Sullivan, Wiliam Crossingham's brother in law, and possibly even Crossingham or John MCCarthy. I doubt, therefore, if a conspiracy in favour of a penniless local woman would have succeeded.

Hello John

I agree. I think she had a great sense of her own importance and wanted to get in on the act, not realising that she would have to appear as a witness. She then obviously thought she couldn't back down, so embellished her statement to make it more believable.

(Not thinking quite clearly today, been struggling with the task of cleaning up a translation in which the words "Xxx's offering to their customers" appeared. Not quite as bad as an official EU site stating that "a committee of wise men....."!)

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

”Mrs. Caroline Maxwell, the wife of a lodging-house deputy, was very positive that she saw and spoke to Mary that very morning. It was 8.30, and Mary had just come from that evil room. We all know the conversation, but what is important is that she was shocked by Mary's appearance, and her words "I have got the horrors of drink upon me" concealed the horrors of something of which she dared not speak; the horrors of murder.“

Try to be openminded here, Joe only had a quick look at the body that was found at Miller's Court, the woman had blue eyes and so did Mary, so there you have his statement, that's all he got though. Her clothes were all folded, tidy..her door was locked. Unless you believe that "Jack" locked the door and left. Funny thing about that is, the key was lost and then finally found, really? Like seriously, a serial killer that leaves a piece of evidence behind? Nope, that person was not 1 but 10 steps ahead from everyone.

Hello Jaden

I believe the door locked itself when closed. Can't quite remember the name of the lock but she would have only needed the key to get in.

Best wishes
C4

[John G]

I just don't see Caroline Maxwell as a reliable witness, and Maurice Lewis even less so. For instance, Maxwell admits that she only spoke to Kelly on about two occasions over a four month period. I therefore really don't see how she could be certain of correctly identifying Kelly based upon such a casual acquaintance. She also points out that, when she spoke to her on the Friday morning, Kelly referred to her as "Carrie". The coroner clearly thought this strange, I.e because they'd only spoken on two occasions and I think he was right to do so. And it's worth noting that people were generally more formal in the way they addressed each other in the nineteenth century, particularly if they didn't know each other well: George Hutchinson, for instance, claimed that Kelly referred to him as "Mr Hutchinson", even though they'd known each other for about three years.

Maxwell, also claimed to have seen Kelly outside the Britannia at around 8:45, talking to a man, but no one else verified this sighting. As for Maurice Lewis, is claim to have seen Kelly drinking and talking to some people in the Ringers after 10:00am seems totally far-fetched, I.e. because not a single other person recalls seeing or talking to Kelly in the pub at that time.

Could it be a local conspiracy? Well, I very much doubt they'd have got away with it. There was clearly a conspiracy involving the later Austin murder, also in Dorset Street. Nonetheless, the police quickly realized what was happening, as did the coroner at the inquest when several witnesses were caught out lying. And this was a conspiracy involving Daniel Sullivan, Wiliam Crossingham's brother in law, and possibly even Crossingham or John MCCarthy. I doubt, therefore, if a conspiracy in favour of a penniless local woman would have succeeded.

[JadenCollins]

”Mrs. Caroline Maxwell, the wife of a lodging-house deputy, was very positive that she saw and spoke to Mary that very morning. It was 8.30, and Mary had just come from that evil room. We all know the conversation, but what is important is that she was shocked by Mary's appearance, and her words "I have got the horrors of drink upon me" concealed the horrors of something of which she dared not speak; the horrors of murder.“

Try to be openminded here, Joe only had a quick look at the body that was found at Miller's Court, the woman had blue eyes and so did Mary, so there you have his statement, that's all he got though. Her clothes were all folded, tidy..her door was locked. Unless you believe that "Jack" locked the door and left. Funny thing about that is, the key was lost and then finally found, really? Like seriously, a serial killer that leaves a piece of evidence behind? Nope, that person was not 1 but 10 steps ahead from everyone.

[Rosella]

Fascinating, John, and it certainly does undermine the prosecution's case. Like the Borden case the Wallace murder remains officially unsolved. When Lizzie Borden went on trial the first person to find her stepmother Abby murdered (the family doctor, Dr Bowen) was given photographs of the corpse taken by the photographer and stated that he felt the upper part of Abby's body was in a slightly different position. It's hardly surprising that photos of some of these crime scenes look staged.

[John G]

Spyglass, I post on the Lizzie Borden Forum, and photographers fiddling around with the crime scene and moving furniture happened in the Borden home too after Lizzie's parents were murdered. In one photo Andrew Borden may well have had his shoes put back on to have his photo taken, with half his face caved in! The couch where he was killed was certainly moved. (This was August 1892.)

While I was looking on that particular occasion for crime photos something bobbed up about photos taken in the (Julia) Wallace home, where objects/furniture were moved in the process of being photographed. This was Liverpool in the early 1930's! You would think by then the police and their photographers would have been better, but apparently not.

Hi Rosella,

Regarding the Wallace case, if you look at the two photographs closely it becomes clear that items were even moved between the taking of the first and second photograph. In fact, by the time the official police photographer arrived numerous people had been in the room, including the police and neighbours. One of the neighbours, Mrs Johnstone, pointed out that the police were "rooting round everywhere", and on the witness stand she even went as far as questioning the position of the body on the photograph and remarked that the room looked "faked-up".

And, crucially, the the crime scene photograph depicts the blood stained Macintosh by the side of the body, near the rug. However, Mrs Johnstone said that when she first saw it it was almost hidden beneath the body (which I believe significantly undermines the case against the husband.)